Canon Announces EF 16-35 f/2.8L III & EF 24-105 f/4L IS II

[tron]

That 16-35 improvement looks impressive! Now I wait for coma testing as that will determine whether the f2.8 or the f4 will be my next UWA lens. I suspect the coma will be 'good enough' for me and it will be a matter of how long do I have to wait until I can afford it

I am interested in coma too. I do have 16-35 f/4 L IS. It is excellent. Super sharp, IS, low coma. Only I cannot enjoy low coma a lot since it is f/4 and I use my 14 2.8L II for landscape astrophotography. It has some coma but it is not terrible. Canon showed us that they can deal with coma in 24-70 2.8 II and 16-35 f/4L IS so I expect this lens to not disappoint. My dilemma will be that I cannot sell my f/4 since its IS makes it invaluable in museums (and my 14 is small and fits everywhere). Choices, choices...

 

[e_honda]

Prior to pricing being announced, I was hopeful that this new 16-35 might drive down the street price of used f/4 variants. Hopeful that a number of f/4 owners ditch that lens to get the latest/greatest. However, I'm figuring the $2200 price tag just puts these two lenses in clearly different markets.

Most figured this would be the price. Recall that the 70-200 f2.8 II basically costs twice as much as its f4 counterpart. So this is no surprise. The street price of the 16-35 f/4 is already very reasonable as it is.

 

[kaffikopp]

Here's the japanese product page for the 16-35 III, in case it hasn't been posted yet: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef16-35-iii/index.html

There's a coma comparison between this lens and the mk II version a bit down the page. Looks pretty good to me! This will definitely be my next lens purchase, although I won't be able to afford it for some time, particularly considering the price will be equivalent of almost 3200 USD here...

 

[nightscape123]

Here's the japanese product page for the 16-35 III, in case it hasn't been posted yet: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef16-35-iii/index.html

There's a coma comparison between this lens and the mk II version a bit down the page. Looks pretty good to me! This will definitely be my next lens purchase, although I won't be able to afford it for some time, particularly considering the price will be equivalent of almost 3200 USD here...

Wow the improvement in that corner shot is massive. The starburst improvement is also significant. I need to get on a computer so I can read that in English but so far so good. I saw a milkyway shot but no crops... I'm in my phone though so I may have just missed it.

 

[bholliman]

24-105L (original)

24-105L II

24-70L 4.0 L IS

looks like the 24-105L II is in the same league as the 24-70/4LIS

not bad.

Looks like decent improvement over the version I. The 24mm performance being very close to the 24-70 f/4L IS is a good thing since I tend to use standard zooms quite a bit at the wide end.

 

[[email protected]]

16-35 iii looks like a good sharpness improvement, but still falling slightly behind the Tamron 15-30 VC.

Look on the specs tab...
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1530_vcusd.php#ad-image-0
... and compare f/2.8 lines.

Couldn't justify spending 2x as much for a lens that's nots as sharp (although that difference is likely to be unnoticeable) and doesn't have IS. Perhaps there's some special "rendering" factor that'll come out in real world images, but I'm slightly disappointed. And I suspect many of those "rendering" benefits comes from the effects on the brain from having spent northward of $2k on a lens.

As to the 24-105, that's just disappointing.

 

[e_honda]

16-35 iii looks like a good sharpness improvement, but still falling slightly behind the Tamron 15-30 VC.

Look on the specs tab...
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1530_vcusd.php#ad-image-0
... and compare f/2.8 lines.

Couldn't justify spending 2x as much for a lens that's nots as sharp (although that difference is likely to be unnoticeable) and doesn't have IS. Perhaps there's some special "rendering" factor that'll come out in real world images, but I'm slightly disappointed. And I suspect many of those "rendering" benefits comes from the effects on the brain from having spent northward of $2k on a lens.

As to the 24-105, that's just disappointing.

Not that I'll be buying this (happy with my 16-35 f/4) but the Canon III will be smaller, lighter and less cumbersome to carry around than the Tamron and will also be able to take on front filters.

The 24-105 not being a huge jump in optical quality is pretty much expected. Recall the new 50mm f1.8 STM not being much of an improvement in sharpness to the 50mm f1.8 II. It just had better build quality and handling. Also the jump in retail price isn't huge.

And really, you shouldn't expect Canon to make a relatively low priced kit lens too awesome, for it'd give less reason for people to spend the extra on the "premium" lenses.

 

[Random Orbits]

16-35 iii looks like a good sharpness improvement, but still falling slightly behind the Tamron 15-30 VC.

Look on the specs tab...
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1530_vcusd.php#ad-image-0
... and compare f/2.8 lines.

Couldn't justify spending 2x as much for a lens that's nots as sharp (although that difference is likely to be unnoticeable) and doesn't have IS. Perhaps there's some special "rendering" factor that'll come out in real world images, but I'm slightly disappointed. And I suspect many of those "rendering" benefits comes from the effects on the brain from having spent northward of $2k on a lens.

As to the 24-105, that's just disappointing.

You'll have to wait for reviewer comparisons (like TDP or LensRentals). Companies do not calculate MTFs the same way so comparing between different company data is difficult.

 

[Sabaki]

16-35 iii looks like a good sharpness improvement, but still falling slightly behind the Tamron 15-30 VC.

Look on the specs tab...
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1530_vcusd.php#ad-image-0
... and compare f/2.8 lines.

Couldn't justify spending 2x as much for a lens that's nots as sharp (although that difference is likely to be unnoticeable) and doesn't have IS. Perhaps there's some special "rendering" factor that'll come out in real world images, but I'm slightly disappointed. And I suspect many of those "rendering" benefits comes from the effects on the brain from having spent northward of $2k on a lens.

As to the 24-105, that's just disappointing.

You'll have to wait for reviewer comparisons (like TDP or LensRentals). Companies do not calculate MTFs the same way so comparing between different company data is difficult.

A project for Roger at Lens Rentals me thinks! October must come, can't wait for TDP's review either

 

[d]

Here's the japanese product page for the 16-35 III, in case it hasn't been posted yet: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef16-35-iii/index.html

There's a coma comparison between this lens and the mk II version a bit down the page. Looks pretty good to me! This will definitely be my next lens purchase, although I won't be able to afford it for some time, particularly considering the price will be equivalent of almost 3200 USD here...

Thanks for the link - looks promising!

 

[PhotographyFirst]

Canon Japan has samples of the 16-35 III wide open with 100% corner samples. I've seen plenty of shots from the Tamron 15-30 and I think the Canon is a bit better wide open at widest FL in the corners. We'll have to wait and see if the coma is as good as the Tamron though.

 

[kaffikopp]

A few higher-res samples of the 16-35: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-lens-sample-images/

 

[mackguyver]

A few higher-res samples of the 16-35: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-lens-sample-images/

That's some crazy low coma (and CA) at 16mm in the astro shot!

 

[tron]

A few higher-res samples of the 16-35: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-lens-sample-images/

That's some crazy low coma (and CA) at 16mm in the astro shot!

Indeed! Thanks for mentioning it!

 

[sleepnever]

I'm actually a bit shocked now that everything is official, NDA's lifted, that there are now official reviews of the 16-35. Was really hoping to see those right out the gate like the media has done for the camera.

..waits longer...

 

[Camerajah]

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef24-105-ii/index.html

Is that the blue goo I see in that drawing-need help from our Japanese speaking friends here,also see same in the new 16-35

 

[C4userguy]

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef24-105-ii/index.html

Is that the blue goo I see in that drawing-need help from our Japanese speaking friends here,also see same in the new 16-35

I'm not seeing that optical element in the new 24-105. Are you referencing the ASC-treated element?

 

[BeenThere]

A few higher-res samples of the 16-35: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-lens-sample-images/

That's some crazy low coma (and CA) at 16mm in the astro shot!

The CA does look good; can't say if it was corrected in post. The star shot has some significant coma in the corners, but I've seen worse.

 

[Luds34]

Prior to pricing being announced, I was hopeful that this new 16-35 might drive down the street price of used f/4 variants. Hopeful that a number of f/4 owners ditch that lens to get the latest/greatest. However, I'm figuring the $2200 price tag just puts these two lenses in clearly different markets.

2200$?? You lucky guys over there....

It will cost 2625€ in Germany... (close to 3000$!)

I guess the replacement of my old Mark II will have to wait a bit..

Ahhhh, you Germans are rich, you can afford it.

 

[Luds34]

The 24-105 not being a huge jump in optical quality is pretty much expected. Recall the new 50mm f1.8 STM not being much of an improvement in sharpness to the 50mm f1.8 II. It just had better build quality and handling. Also the jump in retail price isn't huge.

In fairness (can someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the 50mm f/1.8 II and STM are the same optical formula. Different focus system, aperture, and some coating on the lens, but the optics were the same.

Good or bad, Canon has hit so many home runs lately on lens releases that the bar has been set a bit high. Anything that is not a home run probably comes across a bit disappointing.