July 26, 2014, 04:10:02 PM

Author Topic: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]  (Read 7963 times)

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 696
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Wow....year of the lens....a pair of wides no one wanted and a set of TS-e lenses that certainly no one wanted....
Meanwhile, the 35mm f1.4 II L and 100-400 II L unicorns stay in their stable....

canon rumors FORUM


Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4356
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
and a set of TS-e lenses that certainly no one wanted....

... or no one can afford :-p ... but from Canon's perspective it's still a smart choice because these are (afaik) unique to their mount, so "strengthen your strengths" as marketing people advise.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1775
    • View Profile
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..
Since you referenced coma I believe that you are interested in Astrophotography. In that case a f/2.8 lens is much more useful. Also even the current 16-35 2.8 II lens will have less coma at f/4... But, for Astrophotography the faster lens the better (I have used up to 10000 to 12800 ISO and I wouldn't want to have to use 25600)

By the way I am interested in Astrophotography. I sold my 16-35 2.8 L (version I) and I use a Zeiss 21mm 2.8 and a Canon 14mm 2.8 L II (not perfect but much better than my 16-35...)


climber

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
@Tron: How do you like Canon's 14mm 2.8 for landscape?

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 763
    • View Profile
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..
Since you referenced coma I believe that you are interested in Astrophotography. In that case a f/2.8 lens is much more useful. Also even the current 16-35 2.8 II lens will have less coma at f/4... But, for Astrophotography the faster lens the better (I have used up to 10000 to 12800 ISO and I wouldn't want to have to use 25600)

By the way I am interested in Astrophotography. I sold my 16-35 2.8 L (version I) and I use a Zeiss 21mm 2.8 and a Canon 14mm 2.8 L II (not perfect but much better than my 16-35...)

I'm not an astro person, but from what I've read (http://www.lonelyspeck.com/lenses-for-milky-way-photography/), an F/4 zoom is not ideal.  Coma isn't really covered here, but this guy's calculations would suggest wide FL + wide max aperture are king.

- A

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1281
    • View Profile
When the 6D was announced, a lot of people would have opted for the 5D II instead, but then the 6D's IQ and other features won out in the end.  When the 24-70 f/4 IS was announced, a lot of people swore by their 24-105 f/4 IS, but now people are considering the 24-70 f/4 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS.  If the 16-35 f/4 IS has better IQ than the existing 16-35 f/2.8 II, then it will also be a winner.

I see the 16-35 f/4 IS ultimately taking over the spot of the 17-40 and will create a trio of L f/4 IS zooms:  16-35/24-70/70-200.  There is still room for a 16-35 f/2.8 III and a 14-24 f/2.8.  I've tried the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS, and I'm not convinced that IS is needed at such short focal lengths.  I could get sharper results around 1/15 with IS off (albeit with a lower keeper rate), and I can get good results with IS at 1/10 to 1/6, but  the results still show motion blur at 100%.  1/6 isn't slow enough to blur clouds or water, so there aren't that many scenarios where IS would be useful (for stills).  Longer than that and I'd rather use a tripod or jack up the ISO because there is too much motion blur even with IS on to get a good shot consistently.

Also agree with others thinking that the 10-18 might be sold as in a kit wit the 18-55/55-250.  That would be an atttractive package to beginner DSLR users.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1775
    • View Profile
Coma isn't really covered here, but this guy's calculations would suggest wide FL + wide max aperture are king.
- A
True but: The 35mm 1.4L and 24 1.4L II are coma kings too! In addition there are no UWA lenses faster than 2.8 (14, 16mm, etc) anyway.

canon rumors FORUM


ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 763
    • View Profile
When the 6D was announced, a lot of people would have opted for the 5D II instead, but then the 6D's IQ and other features won out in the end.  When the 24-70 f/4 IS was announced, a lot of people swore by their 24-105 f/4 IS, but now people are considering the 24-70 f/4 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS.

+1.  Dead on.  In my hands and for my needs, The 24-70 F/4L IS is a comprehensive winner.  It's lighter and shorter than all the L 24-something lenses, sharper than everything but the 24-70 F/2.8L II, and the 0.7x macro is unbelievably handy in walkaround shooting situations. 

Comparing to my previous 24-70, the older 24-70 F/2.8L I, I gave up one stop in return for IS, sharper performance, a massive weight reduction, useful size reduction (I can get the F/4 into some sporting venues with a 6" size limit), and the macro is just gravy.  That's a terrific trade for how and what I shoot.

There's a long-running gun battle between 24-70 F/4L IS proponents and 24-105 F/4L IS proponents, and I don't want to start the length vs. overall IQ/features debate here as people have really strong opinions about this.  Suffice it to say, you know where my vote is.   :D

Quote
I see the 16-35 f/4 IS ultimately taking over the spot of the 17-40 and will create a trio of L f/4 IS zooms:  16-35/24-70/70-200.  There is still room for a 16-35 f/2.8 III and a 14-24 f/2.8. 

Agree again.  That seems to be where this is going -- Canon is pushing high quality F/4 zooms that are worthy of the L designation, but do not have the enormous / heavy / 82mm filter / built-for-war designs that the top of the line F/2.8 zooms represent.  I'm tickled pink about that as I get a 9/10 lens at everything except for aperture, and I don't shoot sports (at all) or portraiture (with a zoom).  So I'm just saving my back and my wallet with these 'sleeper' / 'pro-lite' lenses that work like a charm.

I know it's not what the die-hard enthusiasts and pros may want, but I'm pretty geeked about this F/4 zoom (if/when it happens).

- A

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3284
    • 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


Maybe, I was just going by Canon's MTF charts and a few early reports. Maybe in practice it doesn't work out.

(although I don't entirely trust TDP, I'd like to see some photozone.de and some other reports too, TDP has had a lot of results that haven't matched my own careful tests or some other sites at times; it also depends how you do the tests, TDP might test close and I don't think they refocus for mid-frame or corner the latter you can argue which way is a more sensible way to test but regardless of that it makes radically trickier to test consistently, but even center frame.... I mean their tamron lenses all look like coke bottles and so on)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3284
    • 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

room to fit in IS, $1300 instead of $2300 perhaps, potential to make it perform a touch better stopped down to landscape DOF where this focal range is most often (although yes not always) used when used on FF, makes it smaller and lighter by a lot, also nice, since you might want to hike around with it paired with one or two other lenses.

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 763
    • 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


Maybe, I was just going by Canon's MTF charts and a few early reports. Maybe in practice it doesn't work out.

(although I don't entirely trust TDP, I'd like to see some photozone.de and some other reports too, TDP has had a lot of results that haven't matched my own careful tests or some other sites at times; it also depends how you do the tests, TDP might test close and I don't think they refocus for mid-frame or corner the latter you can argue which way is a more sensible way to test but regardless of that it makes radically trickier to test consistently, but even center frame.... I mean their tamron lenses all look like coke bottles and so on)


Trust TDP for a lot of things:  usage experience, handling, databases of specs and insights about lenses' strengths/weaknesses. 

I just don't use it for IQ data.  There are a boatload of sites that do that a bit better.

- A




dgatwood

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • 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

Agreeed.  I would ditch my 16-35 L II for an equally fast IS version in an instant.  An f/4?  Meh.  Too much functional overlap with my 24–105.

Then again, in Canonthink™, that would reduce demand for the 24mm f/1.4 L, so I wouldn't expect them to build one any time soon.  :D
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 09:31:33 PM by dgatwood »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
Wow....year of the lens....a pair of wides no one wanted and a set of TS-e lenses that certainly no one wanted....
Meanwhile, the 35mm f1.4 II L and 100-400 II L unicorns stay in their stable....

I don't know about that.

A wide angle lens that is sharp corner to corner is certainly needed to give people an alternative to the 16-35/f2.8 and 17-40/f4 - both of which are terrible in the corner.

canon rumors FORUM


ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 763
    • View Profile

Let there be (potentially fake) pictures! 

http://photorumors.com/2014/05/12/first-pictures-of-the-upcoming-canon-wide-angle-lenses/

A plastic mount on the 10-18 (if true) screams being right in line with the 'budget trinity' of 10-18 / 18-55 / 55-250 that some have speculated about.   That would also mean (a) it can't possibly cost much and (b) it is likely not a replacement of the EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM.

I can't make out the filter diameter of that 16-35 F/4L IS, but I've got my fingers crossed for 77mm.   :D

- A

nicke

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
I can't make out the filter diameter of that 16-35 F/4L IS, but I've got my fingers crossed for 77mm.   :D

I think it looks like 77mm!  ;D


canon rumors FORUM