Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]

[sanj]

Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?

Impossible to predict. It's a favorite photo journalism lens, probably much more practical than the 12-24 range. And future high ISO improvements may make an update to the f/2.8 even less relevant.
Long term, I would think:

1.   12-24 (or 14-24) f/2.8L 
2.   16-35 f/4L IS  (the 17-40 f/4L is a goner I think)
3.   16-35 f/2.8L III (I tend to think there'll be an update)

I think there's room for all three zooms, and if push came to shove I would probably favor an optically excellent 16-35 2.8L III over an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS.  But I'd prefer an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS over the less-than-excellent 16-35 f/2.8L II (which I currently own, and love).   The 14 f/2.8L II may not see another update.

I think the 17-40L will stay, and so will the 16-35 II. The 12/4-24 and 16-35 will be additions.

Same same

[rrcphoto]

I don't know why an f/4 lens can get great mtf results without a bulbous lens, but an f/2.8 would need a bulbous front. At 16mm the angles are the same. .. but I don't design lenses, you might be right.  Anyway is good to have choices,  but the new 16-35mm looks like it will produce sharper more contrasty shots than either of the existing lenses

Just worth pointing out, Nikon has the same deal.

16-35 f/4 VR - sharp
17-35 f/2.8 (flat) - weak corners (actually worse than Canon's corners with more CA).
14-24 f/2.8 (bulbous) - sharp

Also other third party f/2.8 lenses I've heard people compare the 16-35 II to that are sharper with similar range have been bulbous.

I am not a lens designer either but a trend appears to have formed.

14 2.8 bulbous .. not that sharp at the corners. that has little bearing on the lens sharpness but more to do with FOV.

[rrcphoto]

I know there is a lot of interest in a revamp of the 16-35 f/2.8 II that has the same IQ as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

I really don't think it is going to happen anytime remotely soon though, and here is why:

Time between 24-70 I and 24-70 II: 10 years
24-70 I designed in 2002.
24-70 II increased size of front element, and total number of elements
Difference?  Massive.

Time between 16-35 I and 16-35 II: 6 years
16-35 I designed in 2001.
16-35 II increased size of front element, total number of groups and elements, new coatings, etc
Difference? Only somewhat better, nowhere near the improvement 24-70 made.
16-35 II is 7 years old.

canon added a bunch of super wide / ultra wide patients.  they also changed alot of their lens R&D and development technology.

the fact of the matter is .. if canon can come up with a 14-24 then they can certainly improve on a 16-35 - and that certainly needs it more .. first.

[sposh]

Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?

[climber]

Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?

For night sky, f/2.8 is nice to have.

[Malm]

Concerning the bulbous front element:

At least Zeiss is able to build an excellent 15/2,8 lens without a bulbous front element. Well, but it's a prime lens and not a zoom lense.

[sposh]

(Veering a bit off-topic here, sorry) Only done night sky a couple of times and chose f8. What do you get at wider apertures? Is the idea to stop the stars streaking?

[Ruined]

Concerning the bulbous front element:

At least Zeiss is able to build an excellent 15/2,8 lens without a bulbous front element. Well, but it's a prime lens and not a zoom lense.

ok, yes a couple of things:
1) prime as you stated so totally different
2) not bulbous but requires 95mm filter - 16-35 II 82mm
3) no autofocus

I know for an event photographer likely all three of these compromises would be a deal killer.  Canon's last improvement to the 16-35 included increasing the front element so that it required 82mm filters instead of 77mm.  While further improvements could be made likely by going beyond 82mm, question is do people want this for event photography/reportage as some already complain the current 82mm is too big.

might make more sense to focus on landscape who would probably prefer wider than 16mm and wouldn't care about front element size/shape.

[ewg963]

Concerning the bulbous front element:

At least Zeiss is able to build an excellent 15/2,8 lens without a bulbous front element. Well, but it's a prime lens and not a zoom lense.

ok, yes a couple of things:
1) prime as you stated so totally different
2) not bulbous but requires 95mm filter - 16-35 II 82mm
3) no autofocus

I know for an event photographer likely all three of these compromises would be a deal killer.  Canon's last improvement to the 16-35 included increasing the front element so that it required 82mm filters instead of 77mm.  While further improvements could be made likely by going beyond 82mm, question is do people want this for event photography/reportage as some already complain the current 82mm is too big.

might make more sense to focus on landscape who would probably prefer wider than 16mm and wouldn't care about front element size/shape.

+1

[Sabaki]

Thing is this lens must happen and performance must not be compromised.

I believe that if this lens delivers unparalleled performance, filters will happen.

I started my photographic journey three years back and from the reviews, the user feedback I read, there were three lenses that were considered necessary but were not loved.  Canon 50mm f/1.4, 24-70 f/2.8 mki and the 16-35mm f/2.8 mkii.

Hopefully the 50mm f/1.4 will have a story that unfurls like the 24-70's did. The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkii has changed sentiment across the photographic community. From comments like 'necessary workhorse' to 'I don't like the 24-70 but I need it for my work', the mkii has people raving! It's as good as the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii and has become as desired.

Canon need to acknowledge that the 16-35 f/2.8ii needs similar treatment. They need to keep in the back of their minds that professional togs who spend big money on equipment sometimes buy Tamron or Sigma UWA because their flagship lens underperforms.

I for one am extremely hopeful, judging by the new 16-35 f/4.0, I believe that Canon has a recipe for success. I've got my fingers crossed.

[pedro]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16510"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16510">Tweet</a></div>
We were told almost immediately after the announcement of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">EF 16-35 f/4L IS</a> that Canon is indeed working on an f/2.8 ultra wide angle zoom. The lens will be wider than 16mm, although the exact optical formula is not known. We have heard in the past that an EF 12-24 f/2.8L  or <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/" target="_blank">EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a> was in the works to compete with the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G, which some Canon shooters have converted to their EOS bodies.</p>
<p>It was stressed that the lens was “not close” to being announced, and would probably arrive within 6 months of a higher megapixel full frame prosumer camera body.</p>
<p>We’re also told that the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 17-40 f/4L</a> will remain a current product in the Canon lineup for the time being. Although with how close they are in price, which I’m still surprised about. I can’t see many people not savings a bit longer for the new lens. This may be a matter of depleting stock before discontinuation.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS $1199:</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=6AVWEQKBYJ7TXPHU" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a></strong> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA16354.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

sounds fine. the 12-24 F/2.8 plus the 5DIV as a christmas announcement? but unfortunately this looks like a 6-6.5k $ package...or am I wrong. I guess Canon will ask at least 2k US$ for the new lens, or even more...?

[stefsan]

(Veering a bit off-topic here, sorry) Only done night sky a couple of times and chose f8. What do you get at wider apertures? Is the idea to stop the stars streaking?

Exactly. If you wish to get a nice shot where you can see the Milky Way above a nice bit of landscape you want to to have a fast ultra wide angle lens to minimize exposure times and lessen the need to use high ISOs. And in a perfect world this UWA lens would give you really good corner sharpness and no coma aberration (optical aberration distorting the stars in the corner to oblong splotches).
If the 16-36 f4 would deliver that kind of optical quality/sharpness across the whole frame (FF), I would be willing to give up f2.8 

[pierlux]

Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?

For night sky, f/2.8 is nice to have.

For moving subjects. IS does not help stopping motion blur when elements in the scene are moving, it only compensates for the camera/lens shake. Photojournalists may prefer a f/2.8 non-IS lens over a f/4 IS one; to them, distorsion is a minor issue compared to motion blur.

[Cali_PH]

might make more sense to focus on landscape who would probably prefer wider than 16mm and wouldn't care about front element size/shape.

A bulbous front element could matter to many that use filters, common in landscape photography. It would most likely be incompatible with the few existing holders designed for bulbous elements, meaning a potentially long wait for someone to come up with one for the new lens.  Even if it happens to work with one of the existing ones, they're expensive and require larger, very expensive filters. 

[Canon 14-24]

The ultra wide fund has been accumulating since the release in 2007 with the Nikon 14-24...already pre-ordered the 16-35 f/4 IS and I'll pre-order the 14-24 or 12-24 as well!

Who says you need to pick between them?! There are different purposes of both and I'll sure as hell use both!

14-24 - astro/night/architecture (yes even still alongside the 17mm ts-e)/interiors(big difference between 14mm and 16mm!)/indoor events(2.8 faster for motion w/ or without flash)
16-35 - waterfalls (full ND filters)/landscape (longer zoom range for versatility on limited trails or dusty/sandy conditions with the extra protection need of a front filter)/walk around casual hand holding outdoor events