October 20, 2014, 09:07:47 PM

Author Topic: Canon Camera Museum Posts Technical Reports for EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM.  (Read 2281 times)

Canon Rumors

  • Administrator
  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
    • View Profile
    • Canon Rumors
canonrumors.com

canon rumors FORUM


mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Not too much to get excited about other than the fact that it says the IS is optimized for up to 0.5s.  The really interesting thing to me was that their comparison table at the end shows how it matches the 16-35 f/2.8 II, not the 17-40 f/4, which almost seems like they are saying it's a replacement for the f/2.8 II.  On the other hand, they say the first objective was, "Ultra-wide-angle zoom lens with the excellent image quality of an f/4L series lens," so they aren't very clear. 

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Unfortunately I think some are so focused on sharpness and sharpness tests these days, they forget that sharpness is only a piece of the whole pie.  There are other elements, such as max aperture, bokeh rendering, flare, color/contrast, focusing ability, falloff, ca, size/weight that are equally important.

thus, I believe some are feeling the 16-35 f/4 IS is a replacement for the f/2.8 II since the former is sharper than the latter.  But as you note, it is definitely not a replacement as many would never give up f/2.8 for a bit sharper corners.

Lenses all have a tradeoff, and I wish more would look at the big picture rather than honing in on sharpness above all else.  It is important, but many other things are important too.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 10:38:04 AM by Ruined »

SoullessPolack

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Unfortunately I think some are so focused on sharpness and sharpness tests these days, they forget that sharpness is only a piece of the whole pie.  There are other elements, such as max aperture, bokeh rendering, flare, color/contrast, focusing ability, falloff, ca, size/weight that are equally important.

thus, I believe some are feeling the 16-35 f/4 IS is a replacement for the f/2.8 II since the former is sharper than the latter.  But as you note, it is definitely not a replacement as many would never give up f/2.8 for a bit sharper corners.

Lenses all have a tradeoff, and I wish more would look at the big picture rather than honing in on sharpness above all else.  It is important, but many other things are important too.

Sure, but many are using this as a landscape lens, and generally in landscape photography, sharpness is one of the most important things.  Let's go through the things you mentioned:

Max Aperture - in general, not so important, except for non-star-trail astrophotography
Bokeh rendering - not important
Flare - by all reports, this lens is better than the 16-35 2.8
Color/contrast - we will see shortly, but I doubt with current technology that this will be worse than the 2.8, and even if so, color is typically added/changed in post
Focusing ability - not so important
Falloff - should have less than a 2.8 lens, but will see shortly
Ca - judging by the elements, should have less than the 2.8
Size/weight - beats the 2.8 by a tiny bit, and is insignificant in my opinion, so I would say they're evenly matched.

So if you're using this for landscape, then the f4 is the way to go my man.  Now, of course people us this for other genres, but I'm just going by what the most common usage for the UWAs is.  If you're curious how I came to that conclusion, search flickr or any other photo sharing site for photos from the 16-35, 17-40, and 14mm lenses and you'll find that the majority are landscape, followed by architecture.

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Unfortunately I think some are so focused on sharpness and sharpness tests these days, they forget that sharpness is only a piece of the whole pie.  There are other elements, such as max aperture, bokeh rendering, flare, color/contrast, focusing ability, falloff, ca, size/weight that are equally important.

thus, I believe some are feeling the 16-35 f/4 IS is a replacement for the f/2.8 II since the former is sharper than the latter.  But as you note, it is definitely not a replacement as many would never give up f/2.8 for a bit sharper corners.

Lenses all have a tradeoff, and I wish more would look at the big picture rather than honing in on sharpness above all else.  It is important, but many other things are important too.

Sure, but many are using this as a landscape lens, and generally in landscape photography, sharpness is one of the most important things.  Let's go through the things you mentioned:

Max Aperture - in general, not so important, except for non-star-trail astrophotography
Bokeh rendering - not important
Flare - by all reports, this lens is better than the 16-35 2.8
Color/contrast - we will see shortly, but I doubt with current technology that this will be worse than the 2.8, and even if so, color is typically added/changed in post
Focusing ability - not so important
Falloff - should have less than a 2.8 lens, but will see shortly
Ca - judging by the elements, should have less than the 2.8
Size/weight - beats the 2.8 by a tiny bit, and is insignificant in my opinion, so I would say they're evenly matched.

So if you're using this for landscape, then the f4 is the way to go my man.  Now, of course people us this for other genres, but I'm just going by what the most common usage for the UWAs is.  If you're curious how I came to that conclusion, search flickr or any other photo sharing site for photos from the 16-35, 17-40, and 14mm lenses and you'll find that the majority are landscape, followed by architecture.

16-35 II is also hugely popular for weddings and pj work, where f/2.8 is critical as is bokeh quality (especially at 35mm).  So, that is the area the f/4 lens would easily be trumped imo - in these applications the important content is near center of the frame, not the corners.

While many will use this as a landscape lens, I think Canon will come out with something even better for landscapers in the future as this lens still does not quite compete with Nikon's 14-24, moreso with the 16-35 f/4 VR. I would argue that 14-24 is a more useful range for landscape than 16-35, plus the Nikon does f/2.8 while remaining sharp across the frame.  16-35 range is very useful to wedding/pj because it works in very cramped spaces while still being able to do 35mm f/2.8 portraits.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 12:10:55 PM by Ruined »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3086
    • View Profile
Unfortunately I think some are so focused on sharpness and sharpness tests these days, they forget that sharpness is only a piece of the whole pie.  There are other elements, such as max aperture, bokeh rendering, flare, color/contrast, focusing ability, falloff, ca, size/weight that are equally important.

thus, I believe some are feeling the 16-35 f/4 IS is a replacement for the f/2.8 II since the former is sharper than the latter.  But as you note, it is definitely not a replacement as many would never give up f/2.8 for a bit sharper corners.

Lenses all have a tradeoff, and I wish more would look at the big picture rather than honing in on sharpness above all else.  It is important, but many other things are important too.

Sure, but many are using this as a landscape lens, and generally in landscape photography, sharpness is one of the most important things.  Let's go through the things you mentioned:

Max Aperture - in general, not so important, except for non-star-trail astrophotography
Bokeh rendering - not important
Flare - by all reports, this lens is better than the 16-35 2.8
Color/contrast - we will see shortly, but I doubt with current technology that this will be worse than the 2.8, and even if so, color is typically added/changed in post
Focusing ability - not so important
Falloff - should have less than a 2.8 lens, but will see shortly
Ca - judging by the elements, should have less than the 2.8
Size/weight - beats the 2.8 by a tiny bit, and is insignificant in my opinion, so I would say they're evenly matched.

So if you're using this for landscape, then the f4 is the way to go my man.  Now, of course people us this for other genres, but I'm just going by what the most common usage for the UWAs is.  If you're curious how I came to that conclusion, search flickr or any other photo sharing site for photos from the 16-35, 17-40, and 14mm lenses and you'll find that the majority are landscape, followed by architecture.

Yup and for those purposes I'd rank from most important to least important:
Colour/Contrast
CA
Flare
Falloff
Focusing
Size/Weight
Max Aperture
Bokeh

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3919
    • View Profile
One that thing that is made abundantly clear is why it goes to 35mm and not 40mm+. It is in fact due to the design type, they'd have had to change the design considerably as it looks like elements would crash into each other if they had tried even for 40mm, nevermind the 50mm of the early rumors. Probably good design decision in the end. I assume it keeps quality up.

canon rumors FORUM


LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3919
    • View Profile
Unfortunately I think some are so focused on sharpness and sharpness tests these days, they forget that sharpness is only a piece of the whole pie.  There are other elements, such as max aperture, bokeh rendering, flare, color/contrast, focusing ability, falloff, ca, size/weight that are equally important.

thus, I believe some are feeling the 16-35 f/4 IS is a replacement for the f/2.8 II since the former is sharper than the latter.  But as you note, it is definitely not a replacement as many would never give up f/2.8 for a bit sharper corners.

Lenses all have a tradeoff, and I wish more would look at the big picture rather than honing in on sharpness above all else.  It is important, but many other things are important too.

OTOH, in UWA territory I bet far more care about lowered LoCA and greater sharpness and IS than f/2.8. (plus this is smaller and lighter than the 2.8 and who says it won't have better color and contrast and flare resistance, it has even more modern coatings and design).

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3919
    • View Profile
While many will use this as a landscape lens, I think Canon will come out with something even better for landscapers in the future as this lens still does not quite compete with Nikon's 14-24, moreso with the 16-35 f/4 VR. I would argue that 14-24 is a more useful range for landscape than 16-35, plus the Nikon does f/2.8 while remaining sharp across the frame.

Why in the world do you not think this will be competitive with the Nikon 16-35 VR??????????????
????????
??????

And not every landscape shooter prefers the extra 2mm on the wide while giving up 11mm on the long end, that can mean a LOT, LOT more lens switching, plus you don't have to deal with Mr. Bulbous and the filter difficulty issue. And again, IS would be much more help than f/2.8!!

Quote
  16-35 range is very useful to wedding/pj because it works in very cramped spaces while still being able to do 35mm f/2.8 portraits.

I guess, although many use 24-70 2.8 more and even 70-200 2.8. It depends.
But what are you complaining about? You say you don't care about sharp edges and so on so why is the current 16-35 not good enough for you then??

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Unfortunately I think some are so focused on sharpness and sharpness tests these days, they forget that sharpness is only a piece of the whole pie.  There are other elements, such as max aperture, bokeh rendering, flare, color/contrast, focusing ability, falloff, ca, size/weight that are equally important.

thus, I believe some are feeling the 16-35 f/4 IS is a replacement for the f/2.8 II since the former is sharper than the latter.  But as you note, it is definitely not a replacement as many would never give up f/2.8 for a bit sharper corners.

Lenses all have a tradeoff, and I wish more would look at the big picture rather than honing in on sharpness above all else.  It is important, but many other things are important too.

OTOH, in UWA territory I bet far more care about lowered LoCA and greater sharpness and IS than f/2.8. (plus this is smaller and lighter than the 2.8 and who says it won't have better color and contrast and flare resistance, it has even more modern coatings and design).

Per the MTF it looks like the 16-35 f/4 IS will have enhanced sharpness/contrast over the 16-35 f/2.8 II and the smaller front element will likely help reduce flare on top of coatings (look at the 24mm f/2.8 IS if you really want to see reduced flare, btw).  Initial reports also have indicated better corrected LoCA.

But, if you are shooting people such as events (especially indoors), generally all of that is still no substitute for f/2.8.  Shooting people you want to be at 1/100 (unless you intend to introduce motion blur purposely to indicate motion), so Image Stabilization is of no use and f/4 makes it near impossible to hit that shutter speed in a dimly lit event without cranking the ISOs up to a level that will damage the picture far more than any of the lens' improvements.  In fact, sometimes even f/2.8 is not enough and it is necessary to use my 24 f/1.4L or 50 f/1.2L.

While many will use this as a landscape lens, I think Canon will come out with something even better for landscapers in the future as this lens still does not quite compete with Nikon's 14-24, moreso with the 16-35 f/4 VR. I would argue that 14-24 is a more useful range for landscape than 16-35, plus the Nikon does f/2.8 while remaining sharp across the frame.

Why in the world do you not think this will be competitive with the Nikon 16-35 VR??????????????
????????
??????

And not every landscape shooter prefers the extra 2mm on the wide while giving up 11mm on the long end, that can mean a LOT, LOT more lens switching, plus you don't have to deal with Mr. Bulbous and the filter difficulty issue. And again, IS would be much more help than f/2.8!![/qu

If you reread what you quoted, you will note I stated it *will* be competitive with the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR.  What it is not competitive with is the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8.  Which is why I think Canon has something better up their sleeve... They are not going to leave that market on the table all for Nikon.

I understand that not everyone wants a bulbous element (I do not), but some desire the ultimate performance which for UWA has thus far required a bulbous element or otherwise massive front element.  That is not to say the 16-35 f/4 IS is bad, but it is still f/4.


  16-35 range is very useful to wedding/pj because it works in very cramped spaces while still being able to do 35mm f/2.8 portraits.

I guess, although many use 24-70 2.8 more and even 70-200 2.8. It depends.
But what are you complaining about? You say you don't care about sharp edges and so on so why is the current 16-35 not good enough for you then??

I think the current 16-35 II f/2.8 is good enough for my uses, which is why I responded to mack in the first place (reread the first reply to the OP).  Sharper corners would be nice, but I would not give up a whole stop for that as they are sharp enough for my uses as-is and the loss of a full stop would be much more destructive to my photography than sharpness gains in the corners.

16mm is actually useful for tight indoor spaces when 24mm is not wide enough or when you are trying to take a picture of a single couple on a busy dancefloor.  While 16mm does introduce some distortion, if you keep the people in the middle of the frame you can still take a nice looking picture that would not be possible with a 24-70.  And, if you get the opportunity to zoom in, you can get some bokeh still with 35mm @ f/2.8.  Not a ton of out of focus area, but a ton more than you would see at 35mm @ f/4. 

So for some events it is nice to put a 16-35 II f/2.8 on one camera and a 50L or 70-200 f/2.8 II on the other camera.  Because of the shutter speed required to avoid motion blur, f/4 simply will not cut it in this situation.  And hence, why the 16-35 f/4 IS is not a replacement of the 16-35 II f/2.8 - it is simply a different option that appeals primarily as a landscape lens.

I see 3-4 markets:

1.  Budget: 17-40 f/4L (this may be a temporary category until Canon goes through leftover stock, though).

2.  Landscape: 16-35 f/4L IS - Sharp and nicely corrected, but can only do f/4.

3.  Event/PJ: 16-35 f/2.8L II - Not the sharpest in the corners, but f/2.8 allows for faster shutter speeds in events and better subject separation at 35mm.  Since this type of photographer would be mainly shooting people, corners are less important as you can't place your subject there anyway due to distortion.

4.  Extreme performance: 14-24 f/2.8L - Does not exist yet, but I think something like this will come out from Canon soon to counter Nikon's 14-24.  This category is for those who want the fastest and widest zoom regardless of weight and front element size.  Probably not the most practical for long events and hiking trips, but to be used when you want to be using the fastest and widest rectilinear zoom even if it will be bulky, heavy, and potentially require an expensive filter system.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 07:24:09 PM by Ruined »

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1367
    • View Profile
I see 3-4 markets:

1.  Budget: 17-40 f/4L (this may be a temporary category until Canon goes through leftover stock, though).

2.  Landscape: 16-35 f/4L IS - Sharp and nicely corrected, but can only do f/4.

3.  Event/PJ: 16-35 f/2.8L II - Not the sharpest in the corners, but f/2.8 allows for faster shutter speeds in events and better subject separation at 35mm.  Since this type of photographer would be mainly shooting people, corners are less important as you can't place your subject there anyway due to distortion.

4.  Extreme performance: 14-24 f/2.8L - Does not exist yet, but I think something like this will come out from Canon soon to counter Nikon's 14-24.  This category is for those who want the fastest and widest zoom regardless of weight and front element size.  Probably not the most practical for long events and hiking trips, but to be used when you want to be using the fastest and widest rectilinear zoom even if it will be bulky, heavy, and potentially require an expensive filter system.

I'd rather see a 16-35 f/2.8 III, 16-35 f/4 IS and a 14L III.  If the 16-35 f/2.8 III is as good or better than the 16-35 f/4 IS and is able to use front filters, then I think it'll do well in the market.  With a class leading 16-35 f/2.8 III, there is much less need for a 14-24, and the 14L III will still be more compact/lighter than a 14-24.  Fix the coma characteristics of the 24L II, and you'll great astro lenses at 14 and 24mm.

I agree that some will still need/want the f/2.8 aperture, but no matter how you look at it, the market for the 16-35 f/2.8 II is now a lot smaller if the 16-35 f/4 IS is as good as the MTFs predict.  The 16-35 f/4 IS is priced to compete against Nikon's offering.  I just sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II, and I really don't care that the 16-35 f/4 IS has IS.  My 16-35 f/2.8 II is rarely used because I have primes in the range it covers.  What I do care about is its predicted IQ upgrade across the frame. 

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
I'd rather see a 16-35 f/2.8 III, 16-35 f/4 IS and a 14L III.  If the 16-35 f/2.8 III is as good or better than the 16-35 f/4 IS and is able to use front filters, then I think it'll do well in the market.  With a class leading 16-35 f/2.8 III, there is much less need for a 14-24, and the 14L III will still be more compact/lighter than a 14-24.  Fix the coma characteristics of the 24L II, and you'll great astro lenses at 14 and 24mm.

I agree that some will still need/want the f/2.8 aperture, but no matter how you look at it, the market for the 16-35 f/2.8 II is now a lot smaller if the 16-35 f/4 IS is as good as the MTFs predict.  The 16-35 f/4 IS is priced to compete against Nikon's offering.  I just sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II, and I really don't care that the 16-35 f/4 IS has IS.  My 16-35 f/2.8 II is rarely used because I have primes in the range it covers.  What I do care about is its predicted IQ upgrade across the frame.
We are of very like minds.  Here's to the 16-35 f/4 IS 8)

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
If the 16-35 f/2.8 III is as good or better than the 16-35 f/4 IS and is able to use front filters, then I think it'll do well in the market.

You are assuming this is physically possible :)  This may be similar to saying "if the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III weighs no more than the 70-200 f/4 IS without any image quality loss, then I think it'll do well in the market."

The only f/2.8 lenses I am aware of that are full frame UWA zoom lenses which have significantly better image quality than the 16-35 II use a bulbous element.  Zeiss has an f/2.8 UWA prime that significantly exceeds the 16-35 II in IQ, but even that uses a 95mm filter thread (without autofocus).

I could see a 16-35 III f/2.8 with some minor upgrades over the II (i.e. less CA, better coatings, small sharpness increases), but I don't think you will see anything close to what the 16-35 f/4 IS offers over the 17-40 f/4 without either a bulbous element, much heavier/bulkier lens, or both.  There is simply no precedent that exists for such a lens.

f/4 is too slow for me, so the 16-35 f/4 IS is a non-starter.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 10:21:40 PM by Ruined »

canon rumors FORUM


RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1282
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Unfortunately I think some are so focused on sharpness and sharpness tests these days, they forget that sharpness is only a piece of the whole pie.  There are other elements, such as max aperture, bokeh rendering, flare, color/contrast, focusing ability, falloff, ca, size/weight that are equally important.

thus, I believe some are feeling the 16-35 f/4 IS is a replacement for the f/2.8 II since the former is sharper than the latter.  But as you note, it is definitely not a replacement as many would never give up f/2.8 for a bit sharper corners.

Lenses all have a tradeoff, and I wish more would look at the big picture rather than honing in on sharpness above all else.  It is important, but many other things are important too.

Sure, but many are using this as a landscape lens, and generally in landscape photography, sharpness is one of the most important things.  Let's go through the things you mentioned:

Max Aperture - in general, not so important, except for non-star-trail astrophotography
Bokeh rendering - not important
Flare - by all reports, this lens is better than the 16-35 2.8
Color/contrast - we will see shortly, but I doubt with current technology that this will be worse than the 2.8, and even if so, color is typically added/changed in post
Focusing ability - not so important
Falloff - should have less than a 2.8 lens, but will see shortly
Ca - judging by the elements, should have less than the 2.8
Size/weight - beats the 2.8 by a tiny bit, and is insignificant in my opinion, so I would say they're evenly matched.

So if you're using this for landscape, then the f4 is the way to go my man.  Now, of course people us this for other genres, but I'm just going by what the most common usage for the UWAs is.  If you're curious how I came to that conclusion, search flickr or any other photo sharing site for photos from the 16-35, 17-40, and 14mm lenses and you'll find that the majority are landscape, followed by architecture.

16-35 II is also hugely popular for weddings and pj work, where f/2.8 is critical as is bokeh quality (especially at 35mm).  So, that is the area the f/4 lens would easily be trumped imo - in these applications the important content is near center of the frame, not the corners.

While many will use this as a landscape lens, I think Canon will come out with something even better for landscapers in the future as this lens still does not quite compete with Nikon's 14-24, moreso with the 16-35 f/4 VR. I would argue that 14-24 is a more useful range for landscape than 16-35, plus the Nikon does f/2.8 while remaining sharp across the frame.  16-35 range is very useful to wedding/pj because it works in very cramped spaces while still being able to do 35mm f/2.8 portraits.

Introduce the 16-35 F4 and then after milking the market (esp landscape photographers) drop the 14-24.  All the landscape photographers will switch and Canon can make extra $ that way.  Good marketing ploy.  Unfortunately I need a good landscape lens soon, so I'll spring for the 16-35 F4 and then again for the 14-24 if / when it is available.

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Introduce the 16-35 F4 and then after milking the market (esp landscape photographers) drop the 14-24.  All the landscape photographers will switch and Canon can make extra $ that way.  Good marketing ploy.  Unfortunately I need a good landscape lens soon, so I'll spring for the 16-35 F4 and then again for the 14-24 if / when it is available.

This is pretty much what I think will happen - possibly when the next high end FF Canon DSLR is released.  Nikon clearly struck a nerve with the 14-24 f/2.8, some Canon shooters even using adapters to shoot with it.  This 16-35 f/4 is a step in the right direction for landscape shooters (an answer to Nikon's 16-35 f/4 VR), but Canon still has no real response for the 14-24 f/2.8.

canon rumors FORUM