October 24, 2014, 07:45:31 AM

Author Topic: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Camera  (Read 23503 times)

Maximilian

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 353
  • The dark side - I've been there
    • View Profile
Finally 2014 is starting to see some interesting Canon DSLR releases.
I got a little bit sad only seeing something good from other companies - although it was really interesting stuff.

Entry Level Trilogy: 10-18mm, 18-55mm & 55-250mm

Mid Level Trilogy: 16-35 f/4.0, 24-70 f/4.0 & 70-200 f/4.0

Holy Trinity: 16-35 f/2.8ii, 24-70 f/2.8ii & 70-200 f/2.8ii
Sabaki, I think you've really said it right.

These two lenses are making an interesting completion in the lineup of zoom lenses.
Although not personally interested, I see a huge consumer market for the 10-18mm now having UWA for such a good price. And these people are not so much into apertures.

Lets hope there is more down the road this year.
sometimes you have to close your eyes to see properly.

canon rumors FORUM


PhotographerJim

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Explorer of Life
    • View Profile
The MTF's do look very good!  I'm also pleasantly surprised by the initial pricing, after reading the introduction I was guessing $1,600 and $350.  For a landscape photographer they look like terrific options.  I'll be waiting for the hands-on reviews, but the 16-35 immediately goes on my list of most wanted lenses.

Agreed, this looks like it's going to replace my 17-40mm VERY soon!  :D

Rudeofus

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Interestingly B&H list the lens at $ 1,199 in the UK its listed by Park Cameras at £ 1,199 at current exchange that makes it $ 2,014 our side of the pond.  The US price converted is £ 713.00 our side of the pond granted the US price needs the sales tax added whilst the UK price include 20% sales tax (VAT). Even if you add 20% to the US list it comes out at $1,498.75 dividing that by the current exchange rate makes it £ 892.11 making the US price
£ 306.89 cheaper. Riff off Britain is alive & well.

That may be true, but you Brits got the white rebel first :P :P

Khalai

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
  • Let there be (flattering) light!
    • View Profile
The MTF's do look very good!  I'm also pleasantly surprised by the initial pricing, after reading the introduction I was guessing $1,600 and $350.  For a landscape photographer they look like terrific options.  I'll be waiting for the hands-on reviews, but the 16-35 immediately goes on my list of most wanted lenses.

Agreed, this looks like it's going to replace my 17-40mm VERY soon!  :D

And you're not going to be alone. But first, I have to wait for the usual ripoff price here in EU. My guess is about 40% more (incl. VAT) than the US price...
6D | 7D | 16-35/4L | 24-70/2.8L II | 50/1.4 (release 50/1.4 II already!) | 100/2.8L | 70-200/2.8L II

candyman

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1401
    • View Profile
    • My Website

Some examples.
They are only JPG and a small size.
Bokeh seems nice.

These are supposed to be from 16-35/4L IS? Can you link the source please? 600x400px image is not really evaluable :)

Exactly. No RAW.
Source is Canon Netherlands:
http://www.canon.nl/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Wide_zoom/EF_16-35mm_f4L_IS_USM/index.aspx
5DIII w/grip  |  6D  |  16-35L IS  |  24-105L  |  70-300L  |  24-70VC  |  70-200 f/2.8L IS II  |  35 f/2 IS  |  50A  |  135L

dufflover

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 137
  • OH YEAH!
    • View Profile
Well now that it's official I can go ahead and ask (well think aloud) how the new EF-S UWA will compare against the EOS-M w/ 11-22mm kit, not just IQ but also size (lens alone vs EOS-M combo).  Like many I bought it as my UWA along with the M fire sale so I'm keen to see the differences.
Hurry up Canon and do something with your sensors! :P

Maximilian

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 353
  • The dark side - I've been there
    • View Profile
Well now that it's official I can go ahead and ask (well think aloud) how the new EF-S UWA will compare against the EOS-M w/ 11-22mm kit, not just IQ but also size (lens alone vs EOS-M combo).  Like many I bought it as my UWA along with the M fire sale so I'm keen to see the differences.
IQ:
Don't know - of course!

Lens (only) size(diameter x lengh)/weight:
EF-S 10-18:   74,6 x 72,0 mm at 240 g
EF-M 11-22:   60,9 x 58,2 mm at 220 g

source:
www.canon.de

your welcome.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 08:53:52 AM by Maximilian »
sometimes you have to close your eyes to see properly.

canon rumors FORUM


mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
The 16-45 f/4 IS has my name all over it - okay, my name isn't Canon, IS, or Ultrasonic, but alas, this is a perfect lens for me (I've used f/2.8 on my 16-35 II about 5 times ;D), and my 16-35 II is up for sale - PM me before I change my mind ;)

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 955
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
I think that the new 16-35mm IS will be a big seller... if I had all three (17-40, 16-35mm 2.8II), this would be the tempting option.. In Canon's new (absurd) pricing structure I am pleasantly surprised at the intro price of this lens. I think this lens makes the 17-40mm a non-entity (except for price!).  When I  added an ultra-wide zoom to my quiver I had initially purchased the 17-40mm but sent it right back...What bothered me was the "short throw" in the zoom ring at the wide end.  There was very little to no separation between focal lengths. This is not talked about very often, but it was a total deal-breaker for me.  I ended up biting the bullet and waiting for a good sale/rebate situation on the 16-35II.  In the current spread and pricing of Canon lenses I this this offering and pricepoint  seem reasonable (relatively).  Although, my last lens purchase was a Sigma (35mm), and my next lens purchase will be a Sigma (50mm), too!.....so perhaps Canon will become even more "reasonable" with their price structure as it has been woobling out of control!   8)
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

Arctic Photo

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...
Ha ha, one can't be suspicious enough...

I think it looks good. Makes me want one even if I am not really in the market for a wide. It will be interesting to see reviews.

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1441
    • View Profile
The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...
Ha ha, one can't be suspicious enough...

I think it looks good. Makes me want one even if I am not really in the market for a wide. It will be interesting to see reviews.

+1.
It's making me think of selling my Rokinon 14 (thankfully I talked myself out of it, for now)
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

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 983
    • View Profile
It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2574
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
A 14mm prime and a 16-35 are very different tools. Even the difference between 14 and 16 is marked, I can't see how a 16-35 would replace that.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM


ewg963

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile

I am not a good MTF reader :-\


Can someone explain to me the IQ difference between the 16-35 f/2.8II and the 16-35 f/4 IS based on the MTF's?
I put them here (upper images are the 16-35 f/2.8II)


Simple, more contrast (bold lines) and more sharpness in the corners (thin lines), from left to right = center to extreme borders, the higher the lines on the graph, the more transmission of contrast (bold) and sharpness (thin), usually, black lines are for wide open aperture whilst blue lines are for f/8. At least, if Canon did not change its MTF legend :)

EDIT: after more observation of those MTF from 16-35/4L, damn, that will be bitingly sharp at f/8. Landscapers rejoice :)
+1
5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, 24-105mm 70-200mm 2.8 Non IS, 100-400mm 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 580EX II, 600EX-RT

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2574
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.

Sure the EF-S looks a good price, but the 16-35 is a 17-40 replacement, at 150% the price. Not saying I feel the 16-35 is particularly expensive, and I very much doubt Sigma had anything to do with it at all, just pointing out it is 150% more than the lens it is replacing with less zoom range.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM