New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion

[Arkarch]

I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2..

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.

You're the first person I've ever heard say the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 MkII.  I'm going to go further and say you outright had a defective copy of the 16-35 because every tester says the 16-35 is sharper and my own experiences have reflected that.

If I recall the charts correctly, the 16-35 is sharper, but has a fairly dramatic drop at the edges.  The 17-40 has less of a change from center to edge - so it the perception may be less pronounced.

That or yeah, crappy 16-35 copy.  But even then, I recall most of the sharpness is in the upper end of that lens - which can be handled by far better lenses.  A 14-24 or even a really good 16-24 would be preferable, since just about everyone has 24 on up.

[bdunbar79]

I'm against a 16-24, because current 16-35 in terms of focal length, is perfect match of 70-200 and a 50 prime. Not everyone care about the joe six-pack 24-70 zoom lens.

True that.

[Etienne]

I'm against a 16-24, because current 16-35 in terms of focal length, is perfect match of 70-200 and a 50 prime. Not everyone care about the joe six-pack 24-70 zoom lens.

I have that setup (16-35 f2.8II, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f2.8 IS II), and while it's good, I would prefer :

16-24 f2.8 sharp and contrasty awesomeness at all focal lengths
35 f1.4 II- awesome sharp and contrasty
70-200 2.8 IS II - incredible (already in my bag)

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I have a savings account with several thousands dollars in it release next year.

If Canon has a good EF 14-24mm by then, I'll buy EF 14-24mm + EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mk2, selling the 17-40mm along the way.

If not, I'm off to buy a Nikon FF camera + Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

[romanr74]

i also own the 16-35 f/2.8 II and corner performance to me is a real issue with this lens. i would love to see a mark III with this resolved. i would love to see a 14-24 f/2.8 too, but the missing front filter possibility would be a drawback...

[nicke]

I also prefer an updated 16-35/2.8 instead of the 14-24. And please keep the 82mm filter size!

[traveller]

People seem to be asking for three different lenses: some want an update of the 16-35mm design with higher resolution; others are willing to sacrifice some range on the long end for extra wide angle coverage; yet others want this lens to retain front mounted filter compatibility. 

Even Nikon (who seem to be able to do no wrong when it comes to wide angle lenses -at least in some people's eyes) need three UWA zooms to do this!

It will be interesting to see if Canon simply update the optical design of the current 16-35mm, attempt to match Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8, or whether they try something different (the position of the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM might influence their thinking). 

[c-law]

Can anyone explain to me if it is possible or desirable to create a UWA like a 14-24mm with a drop in filter system like the superteles. Why? Why not?

If the front elements are to bulbous to fit a filter just as the front elements on superteles are just simply too large then why don't they have this?

Chris

[traveller]

Can anyone explain to me if it is possible or desirable to create a UWA like a 14-24mm with a drop in filter system like the superteles. Why? Why not?

If the front elements are to bulbous to fit a filter just as the front elements on superteles are just simply too large then why don't they have this?

Chris

Pentax does drop in filters with their new 25mm (645) lens:

http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/files/news/8784334430/DA645_25FLT.jpg?v=1560

Of course, there could be further complications with a zoom lens, which may make the idea untenable (I'm no lens design expert).  Even if Canon could implement this, it would still not allow the use of rectangular ND grads (at least not without specialised and expensive filters/holders). 

[RC]

Shooting with a 7D and have a 16-35 II.  I will be getting either the new FF or a 5D3,  looking forward to shooting landscapes on a FF with my 16-35.  What kind of issues should I expect if any (edge sharpness, CA, vignetting) shooting form 5.6 - 11 on a FF?  Thanks

[tron]

An EF16-35 f/2.8 L III that has sharper edges than previous versions, not much vignetting and not much coma at the edges would be just fine.

[K-amps]

I have a 17-40mm and am ok with the focal length, however I cringe at the corner distortion. It is like when Fox TV tries to widen a SD feed to a 16:9.

Yes corner sharpness needs improvement... that goes without saying, but in group shots, it is the distortion that bothers me the most.

I would like a 16-50mm f2.8 so that I am carrying fewer lenses when I go trekking.

[5D Freak]

I would be stoked with a 16mm f2.8 (or even f2.0) filterable prime! Screw the zoom part to save size and cost, and to give the best image quality. Already have a 17tse (sharp but not practically filterable) and 17-40 (slow and edge softness with light falloff). A small 16mm prime would be good in the surf too!

[Caps18]

I have no problems with my 16-35mm II f/2.8.

 I haven't looked real close at the 17TSe vs 16-35mm @17mm yet, but for a city skyline it wasn't too different in terms of sharpness.  The corners were blue sky and blue water though.  And it was my first time shooting the 17mm TSe, so getting the focus just right was different.

[marekjoz]

There are some interesting concepts pending:
1. Patent from March 2, 2012: EF 17-40 f/2.8-4L - http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/patent-canon-17-40-f2-8-4l/
2. Patent from August 2011: EF 16-35 F 2.8 DO - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/08/canon-16-35-f2-8-do-patent/
3. Patent from April 2011: EFS 11 f/2 - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-s-11mm-f2-patent/
4. From November 2009 - EF 15-24/F3.5-4.5 Fish eye zoom - http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2009-11-27
5. From December 2009 - EF14-24 f/2.8L - http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/
6. Finally from March 2012  - new EF16-35mm f/2.8, EF17-35mm f/2.8-4, EF16-35mm f/2-2.8 - http://photorumors.com/2012/03/29/canon-patents-for-a-16-35mm-f2-8-lens-and-2-8x-teleconverter/

It would also be great to see some lenses of this kind: http://www.canonwatch.com/liquid-lens-patent-by-canon-and-video/

Any of the above mentioned concepts, if produced and offered the difference in quality like between the old and new 24-70 (as promised so far) would be a great step forward better quality in the wide end range. In my opinion the best moment for introducing a new wide killer would be while showing the high MP body - the perfect landscape combo.