Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

[pierlux]

  77mm ? I hope not, I'm invested in 82mm now

By a rough visual evaluation it looks <82mm. I guess the majority here would welcome a 77mm front thread.

By now, I'm happy with my 16-35 f/2.8. But I can't wait to read the reviews and look at pictures taken handheld with IS, I'm wondering how long can we expose and still have a sharp image.

[minus28]

Hmm. So Sigma gives us sharper, higher quality and cheaper and Canon's market response.. ermm, more of exactly the same as before?

[Viggo]

I went for a trip to Rome and IS there would have meant ISO 160 indoors instead of 2500, and there were LOTS of places there they will kick you out if you use a tripod. IS on 16mm is to increase dof and lower iso's and let's me leave the god awful mess of a tripod at home, I hate them..

[mackguyver]

I'm waiting for the MTF curves!  I'm crossing my fingers that Canon has finally figured out how to make a sharp wide angle zoom lens for full frames.

[lol]

The 10-18 is interesting to me. It seems an ideal "third zoom" for the budget starter, alongside the 18-55 and 55-250. If the quality and price is in line with those, I'll bite. For my occasional wide angle uses, I don't really want to spend more.

[ahsanford]

I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?
Is it to replace the 17-40 F4? If so and assuming this is for landscape then it will need to be very good quality as the 17-40 is fairly cheap these days. And again assuming this is aimed at landscape/building photography...do you need IS?

If it is to replace the 16-35 F2.8.....with an F4 lens? Sure the IS is welcome for handholding shots...but that will never replace faster glass when shooting low light (thinking weddings and events etc).

Seems like it is stuck in between two lens (16-35 F2.8 & 17-40 F4) to me??

It absolutely is in-between two lenses.  That's fine, as neither are sharp in the corners.  If it's a real product (and it's sizing up to be so) I would liken this lens to the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS --  a lens in-between two current ones that will be hated at first glance for 'why did they make this?' reasons, and then (by some) loved for the IQ it delivers.  This lens will be sharper than the current wide zooms Canon sells and that's a good thing. 

Also, not everyone is shooting landscapes at F/11 with wide zooms -- a modern autofocusing wide lens that is center sharp wide open and possibly corner sharp by F/5.6 or so would be terrific in my book.

So I'm not looking at a 16-35 F/4 IS as being on- or off-target; I'm looking at it as an improvement.  We should welcome that, even if it's not the lens we think we need right now. 

- A

[RGF]

Price....
Expecting the 10-18mm to be twice the price of the 18-55mm - due to a smaller market, than the kit lens
Expecting the 16-35mm f4 IS to start just a tad more costly than the 16-35mm f2.8 II, dropping to about 4/5th's of the price, then a new 16-35mm f2.8 III coming in at nearly twice the price of the f4.0 in about 12 months...  Both as sharp as current primes

if that is the case, they introduced them in the wrong order.  Introduce the more expensive one first, get people who need sharpness, not F2.8, to buy the $3,000 lens  Then offer the cheaper alternative.

Based upon this lens being introduced I don't think there will be 16-35III, rather some other lens that is compelling for people to upgrade (perhaps a 14-24)

[Random Orbits]

Wondering how the 16-35 f/4 will affect the sale of the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses.  How many people would value the wider focal length range compared to an extra stop?  Granted the 24 and 28mm lenses are much smaller, but stilll...

[Cory]

Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22?  I think I might like to have that (to complement my 35 2.0 IS). 

[Dylan777]

4stop IS & sharp as Nik 14-24 or better............I'm in

Can't wait to see MTF chart. Body looks like 24-70 II which very promising.

[Lightmaster]

Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22?

well... what do you think?

[Random Orbits]

4stop IS & sharp as Nik 14-24 or better............I'm in

Can't wait to see MTF chart. Body looks like 24-70 II which very promising.

I find that IS isn't as effective at these shorter FLs.  I played with the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS lens, and I can get sharp pics at around 1/20s with IS off without too much difficulty.  4 stops from that would be close to 1s, and those were far from being sharp with any type of consistency...

[Dylan777]

Hmm. So Sigma gives us sharper, higher quality and cheaper and Canon's market response.. ermm, more of exactly the same as before?

Don't you think a bit early for this? Let's wait for the MTF.

[lol]

Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22?  I think I might like to have that (to complement my 35 2.0 IS).

It is rather early since we know practically nothing other than the claimed leaked image.

Just saw it pointed out elsewhere it has a plastic mount, if that may alter expectations...

[cellomaster27]

YES!! FINALLY A LENS.  NO TWO LENSES FROM CANON!

all this time this year was...sigma, sigma, sigma, rokinon.. and CR1's.  It's not anything revolutionary but I have to say that these lenses are going to find spots in photographers bags soon.  Especially the 10-18mm efs considering a good price point.