Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others

[rs]

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more.. so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly... New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

Events (plus of course other examples like astrophotography mentioned above). Sometimes you need a wider angle of view than 24mm, and sometimes light levels are too for the subject movement, and flashes aren't always appropriate. While bodies are getting better and better at high ISO's, adding a whole stop of light gathering with the lens is quite attractive.

Yes, landscape, architecture and many other uses for an ultrawide rectilinear lens don't go hand in hand with a fast aperture, but just because it isn't for you doesn't mean not for anyone.

 

[BL]

It's a shame these patents don't offer IS...

How long will Canon's 11-22mm M zoom be it's only UWA zoom offering with IS?

 

[docsmith]

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

As has been pointed out, astrophotography, and events, in particular, think of a wedding inside a church. Wide angles are often used to get the entire "scene," even indoors. But, understandably so, many often only associate these lenses with UWA, but f/2.8 at 24-35 mm can be very beneficial. These are not exclusively landscape lenses.

 

[9VIII]

No wide angle f2 zoom lenses? Not interested Canon.
Actually if any of these turn out to have really well controlled distortion with excellent corners I would probably like to have one, the Sigma 18-35 works but to have something made for full frame would be a big improvement on architecture shots.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I'm a huge fan of the 17-40L. Mine had to go into Canon twice, though, and they still couldn't get it right. Luckily, micro adjust saved the day.

I've always been thrilled with the colors from this lens, even compared to other L's. I have no actual hard data to verify why I feel this way, but I do. It's especially pleasing with a good CP.

For me to upgrade, I'd need to see a 16-40 IS, or a 12-24 2.8.

 

[BL]

No wide angle f2 zoom lenses? Not interested Canon.

Are you being serious? Any idea how expensive or cumbersome said lens would be?

 

[Daniel Flather]

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more.. so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly... New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

I'd like my 8-15L f4 to be a 2.8. iso 3200 vs. 6400. Big difference.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more.. so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly... New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

As someone said, with landscape lens, you want to take "nice landscape". And nice landscapes require to travel to good places or to hike. So you don't want a 10 kg equipment.

Group Shots or wide social shots, especially for wedding work

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

Not everyone wants to hike with a tripod. I do a lot of forest hikes where I go minimalistic on the equipment. Forest environments were tailored for UWA lenses. Having IS would be great.

 

[9VIII]

No wide angle f2 zoom lenses? Not interested Canon.

Are you being serious? Any idea how expensive or cumbersome said lens would be?

Sigma makes a 20mmf1.8 that's reasonably sized, and there's 24mmf1.4 lenses all over the place, how hard could 18mmf2 really be?
I agree though, to do a proper job the Nikkor 14-24 is probably a good example of the necessary size.
People would still love it though.

 

[BL]

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

When I travel Europe, I love to photograph castles, churches, museums, (anything dimly lit and indoors) places that never allow pods of any kind.

 

[wjm]

I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

How about this source of imagination:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=538

But that is a f5.6. I want a f4

There were rumors before of a 16-50:http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=16-50+is] [url]http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=16-50+is[/url]

 

[wjm]

I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

Not everyone wants to hike with a tripod. I do a lot of forest hikes where I go minimalistic on the equipment. Forest environments were tailored for UWA lenses. Having IS would be great.

Yes, and even if you can bring a tripod: if IS can do the job why not use it? It is both technology to help the photographer. I don't always know what position I get in and I don't want to carry a tripod all the time (IS is a lot easier).

Futhermore: IS is handy for (quick) 'creative' stills and video in general. Not all people want it but to say: "put it on a pod, end of story" ... no ...

 

[lightthief]

I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

Yes, please travel to Rome and use your tripod inside the Basilika St. Peter - i'm sure the Switzer Guard will show you how they use guys like you, their tripods an a handfull of vaseline...

End of story.

 

[Caps18]

Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?

I like my 16-35mm f/2.8 a lot and haven't noticed any problems with it.

Do you use it for astrophotography fully open?

I have before. Long exposures in national parks out West for instance. I carried it down to the bottom of the Grand Canyon a few years ago (with a tripod even).

 

[tron]

Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?

I like my 16-35mm f/2.8 a lot and haven't noticed any problems with it.

Do you use it for astrophotography fully open?

I have before. Long exposures in national parks out West for instance. I carried it down to the bottom of the Grand Canyon a few years ago (with a tripod even).

Well if you used it for astrophotography at 2.8 you will have seen coma in the form of stars looking like...seagulls just like this guy:

http://www.extremeinstability.com/lens16-17mm.html

 

[Mantanuska]

The 17-40 definitely needs an upgrade. The Tamron 10-24 I had for apsC was sharper than my 17-40 on FF.

You are comparing two different lenses on two different formats. It's not a reasonable comparison.
Yes, there's room for an update. But it's not a critical update. The current 17-40L and 16-35IIL are both very strong and capable performers.

FF should be sharper than APS-C all other things being equal. the fact that I had better sharpness just means that the 17-40 is just that much worse.

 

[wickidwombat]

wow how incredibly underwhelming :

 

[canonographer]

I really hope they deliver on the 16-50mm f/4 IS. That would really be something interesting and new. It would make for a nice walk-around and landscape lens. I've been building a whole new lens plan based on the idea of having one.

A super sharp 16-35mm f/4 would be okay, assuming it's priced right, but still a bit of let down. The 35mm end would still be okay for a general purpose walk-around lens, but just a bit too wide to really feel like a fun general purpose lens.