Will Canon be making a 16-35 f/2.8 IS anytime soon?
- Thread starter ddashti
- Start date
- Status
Well, Nikon may have no intention of releasing a 16-35 VR. A lot of the lens designs that are patented never turn into real products.
There are some rumors of a Canon 14-24mm, but until we get significantly better information, I wouldn't bet on it.
There are some rumors of a Canon 14-24mm, but until we get significantly better information, I wouldn't bet on it.
Upvote
0
This is a rumors site. That does not exclude negative rumors. So I say ... NO!
OK I have no inside information but it the most logical. 16-35mm f/2.8 lenses have the same diameter more or less with 24-70mm f/2.8 L lenses.
And we all know how many 24-70 2.8 L IS lenses exist ;D ;D ;D
OK I have no inside information but it the most logical. 16-35mm f/2.8 lenses have the same diameter more or less with 24-70mm f/2.8 L lenses.
And we all know how many 24-70 2.8 L IS lenses exist ;D ;D ;D
Upvote
0
Going by the recent 24-70 f/2.8 L II, I do not think Canon will release an IS version of 16-35 L anytime soon.ddashti said:
Upvote
0
Canon-F1 said:Dylan777 said:
you better use a tripod for that.
No...he is waiting for that really fast f/1 on the 14-24mm ....except he would also like an IS that gives him 10 stops of stabilization. Clearly it easier than using a tripod with the currently available lenses.
Upvote
0
C
crasher8
Guest
Nothing wrong with being into lowkey wide nighttime images. I for one would welcome a handheld UWA zoom from Canon that actually has sharp(er) corners.
Frigging UWA zoom shopping is KILLING me.
Frigging UWA zoom shopping is KILLING me.
Upvote
0
Going on recent form, I'd expect both a f2.8 20mm IS and a f4 14mm IS in consumer formats
How's that for a rumour ! < note the use of the "u" ;-)
How's that for a rumour ! < note the use of the "u" ;-)
Upvote
0
C
crasher8
Guest
1400 USD for 'competent' is a tough pill to swallow. I think the 17-40 is priced right.(699)You get what you pay for with that one but as for the 16-35, the one stop in light and not very much and according to others, no better in the corners for twice as much?
Upvote
0
If you were to track the 16-35 f/2.8II price since launch, you'll see that it dropped a LOT. Historically, I'd regard $1400 as a great buy for this lens. Agreed, the 17-40 f/4 is seriously good value at $699, and it will match the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8II once past f/5.6. If it's important for your shooting style to have the option of shooting commercial quality files at f/2.8, then the 16-35 f/2.8II will be your UWA zoom of choice.crasher8 said:
Back on topic, I don't think the 16-35 lens needs IS. It's already bulky in the weight and size department and IS would necessitate a chunky price hike. Personally I shoot with the 17-40 f/4 as my UWA work generally needs f/8-f/11. Any update on the 16-35 should be directed at the difficult to solve IQ issues.
The lens that will grab my attention is the 14-24 f/2.8, Canon's current daydream special.
-PW
Upvote
0
I just ordered the 16-35II on Amazon for $1300. I figured there's no point in waiting for a rumored lens. I hope it performs better than what most people are saying about it. I tested both the 17-40 and the 16-35 at a local rental shop. The 16-35 had sharper edges at f11 than the 17-40. It's not as sharp as 24-70II but sharp enough.
Personally, I prefer being able to use filters rather than having IS for UWA lens. Canon patent for the 14-24 design doesn't look like filter is possible. I also hope Canon creates something like a 12-20mm non-fisheye lens design.Dylan777 said:
Upvote
0
pwp said:
I personally feel the 16-35 II is significantly better than the 17-40 the extra stop is big if you use it
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
