September 21, 2014, 04:08:51 AM

Author Topic: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]  (Read 8682 times)

MichaelHodges

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
    • View Profile
A new 16-35 IS would be very tempting. But as an owner of an excellent copy of a 17-40L, I'd need a 12-24 IS or 14-28 IS to migrate.

canon rumors FORUM


LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3716
    • View Profile
How is supoused to be good for video a zoom lens (EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM) with no constant max. aperture?
Am I missing something? Please do not tell me "you shouldn´t zoom while making videos". ;)

If you did zoom at that width then just set it to a fixed f/5.6, who says you have to shoot it set f/4 on the wide end and then glide to f/5.6 as you zoom in? Just lock it at f/5.6.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3716
    • View Profile
The EF-S 10-18 sounds like it might be a budget/ plastic mount lens to go with the 18-55 & 55-250 IS STM lenses.

Remember that every lens isn't for every person- before there are countless threads about the downfall of Canon and their lack of innovation.

If anything, your explanation makes most sense. I didn't think about the range "fit" for the STM line of lenses.  Looks like I'm keeping my UWA. :)

thing is those budget plastic mount 18-55 IS STM and 55-250 IS STM are actually mad sharp, heck the 55-250 STM is said to rival the 70-200 f/4 IS for optics.

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4506
    • View Profile
erggg what is with all the underwhelming slow aperture lenses! why not a 16-35 f2.8 IS? really c'mon canon
f4 wow awesome... NOT
APS-H Fanboy

Slyham

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
I've been saving for the 10-22 so I will be waiting to see the 10-18. Lower cost would be nice and can I wish for a 67mm filter size? I'd rather not buy a 77mm CP filter. STM will be nice for video.

JM Photography

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
    • Hawaii Real Estate Photography
I can vouch for the new plastic STM's.  The 7D was not getting any use at all until I picked up the rock bottom priced 18-55 and 55-250 STM's; now it's a lot of fun with huge improvements on image quality as opposed to using full frame L glass on the crop 7D.

The news of a cheap wide angle STM is very welcome.

The EF-S 10-18 sounds like it might be a budget/ plastic mount lens to go with the 18-55 & 55-250 IS STM lenses.

Remember that every lens isn't for every person- before there are countless threads about the downfall of Canon and their lack of innovation.

If anything, your explanation makes most sense. I didn't think about the range "fit" for the STM line of lenses.  Looks like I'm keeping my UWA. :)

thing is those budget plastic mount 18-55 IS STM and 55-250 IS STM are actually mad sharp, heck the 55-250 STM is said to rival the 70-200 f/4 IS for optics.

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
thing is those budget plastic mount 18-55 IS STM and 55-250 IS STM are actually mad sharp, heck the 55-250 STM is said to rival the 70-200 f/4 IS for optics.

Sorry, but that's a bit of a stretch. They are good, but not that good. Then again, you don't expect them to perform the same as a lens costing 1K more, do you?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

canon rumors FORUM


bardamu

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Canonites are constantly lamenting the lack of a 12-24mm to rival the Nikon, but then the Nikonians are lamenting the lack of a TS-E 17mm to rival the Canon.  Not to mention that the PC-E 24mm is generally thought to be slightly inferior to the Canon TS-E, and Canon's newish 24, 28 and 35 IS options were also well received.  With a lot of Zeiss options to choose from as well the Canon mount wide angles don't seem too bad (as long as you are shooting full frame), of course some improvements would be very welcome and are perhaps overdue.

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
    • View Profile
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.

IS can be nice for a wide lens. Sometimes you want to enjoy as much as photograph yet still want to take as serious and high quality shot as you can and IS could mean two stops plus lower ISO for better detail and more DR without having to do the tripod dance. Sometimes you are with people and constant tripod use bogs things down and then well they get annoyed and you are no longer with people hah. IS could help that a bit. Sometimes the light is changing fast and being able to quickly hand hold a bunch of shots lets you capture a whole bunch of wild stuff while tripod means you maybe miss half the shots if not more. Sometimes you are on the more city part of a trip and dragging a tripod around is a drag or not allowed and IS is good for those times.

That would be a great place to have IS.

Etienne

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 631
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
I'll take a 16-35 f/4 IS as long as it's really good ...

Shallow DOF is not possible with UW unless you get down under f/2. f/2.8 doesn't cut it there. And you often want deep DOF in wide shots, so you end up at f/8 - f/16 a lot of the time anyway
With new cameras getting good results at really high ISO's, the extra light is getting to be less important too.

the f/4 solution gives you a smaller, lighter lens that may outperform the other ultrawides .

Now IS ... I took this HDR photo handheld standing on the sidewalk at 16mm. https://www.flickr.com/photos/39860197@N02/9103336331/

The light was just right when I was walking by with no tripod. The light did not last long. Image Stabilization would have helped a lot.

And for video ... IS takes away the micro-shakes and makes a huge difference . The 28 2.8 IS and the 35 f/2 IS work like a dream for handheld video.

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 945
    • View Profile
Along my lines of expectation.

EF 16-35/4 IS ... Yes, if IQ is excellent from f/4 - including sharp corners. Price will be much higher than 17-40 but with an upper limit ... 16-35/2.8 II. :-)
 no competitor to nik 14-24/2.8 though. If at all, that univorn will only be released together with the mythical canon hi-res body ... "D800E-killer" ... Until that day, serious landscape requires nikon. :-)

EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6 IS STM ... Shorter and even slower than i expected.  No replacement to EF-S 10-22. Really sounds like the WA end of a "plastic fantastic STM trinity". If it's very compact & light and IQ matches EF-M 11-22, priced around 300 i expect it to sell very well. Maybe also as triple zoom kit with sl-1/100d and 700D ... 10-18/18-55/55-250 ... all with silent stm for video. Rather nice, light and inexpensive "travel kit" ... and Nikon currently has nothing to compete with such a kit

Just got the 55-250 stm to go with my 7D when i am not willing to carry 70-200 2.8 II. IQ of the STM is no match of course ... but definitely ok. AF is quite slow though (for stills) in comparison.





Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 958
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
I may be the only one here whose glad that neither of these announcements excites me!  With so many other things to upgrade, it's good to know the UWA doesn't need to be, well, this season at least!
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

verysimplejason

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1348
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr Account
thing is those budget plastic mount 18-55 IS STM and 55-250 IS STM are actually mad sharp, heck the 55-250 STM is said to rival the 70-200 f/4 IS for optics.

Sorry, but that's a bit of a stretch. They are good, but not that good. Then again, you don't expect them to perform the same as a lens costing 1K more, do you?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0


They're almost the same.  Just add a little bit of contrast and sharpening and you'll never be able to distinguish them apart.  Just my 2 cents.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 02:56:11 AM by verysimplejason »

canon rumors FORUM


adhocphotographer

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
    • An ad hoc photographer
16-35 f/4 IS is interesting...  wide angle with IS...  good range for crop and UWA for FF... 

Anyway, it will be expensive...  I will see how it does when it is in the wild before i would consider buying it, and even then i would wait 6 months - year after it is announced for the price to stabilize!
5D MkIII + an every expanding array of lenses and accessories!
-------www.adhocphotographer.com--------

noncho

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
    • NonchoILiev.com
10-18 would be interesting to me year ago...
Now I have great 11-22 for M.

16-35/4 sounds great for FF users.

canon rumors FORUM