Another Mention of an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III

[Canon Rumors]

We’ve received another mention of an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III. We’re told the announcement for the lens could come at any time, as the lens is “done”.</p>
<p>We have no firm announcement date, as that is always a difficult thing to nail down with lenses. With the arrival of the EOS-1D X Mark II, it makes sense that a new L lens would follow relatively quickly.</p>
<p>We do not expect to see it for the CP+ show at the end of this month.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[H. Jones]

I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well. If it's too expensive, I'm going to spring for the 11-24mm, which will let me get shots so wide that very few other photojournalists could get them. Especially if the 1Dx Mark II has a 1-stop improvement in ISO handling when I get it later this year.

 

[adventureous]

It's Super Bowl halftime right now, and with this announcement, it feels like I just won !!

 

[dolina]

I would bet good money that a 1D X Mark II and the Series III 16-35mm are at Super Bowl 50.

I hope that Canon instead releases a 16-35/2.8 with IS.

 

[tron]

I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well. If it's too expensive, I'm going to spring for the 11-24mm, which will let me get shots so wide that very few other photojournalists could get them. Especially if the 1Dx Mark II has a 1-stop improvement in ISO handling when I get it later this year.

This is interesting perspective. However, 16-35 2.8 III will be smaller, lighter, will take filters and it will be easier to handle.

 

[YuengLinger]

Better sell my 16-35 f4 this week...

Now bring on the 50mm 1.2 II L!

 

[H. Jones]

I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well. If it's too expensive, I'm going to spring for the 11-24mm, which will let me get shots so wide that very few other photojournalists could get them. Especially if the 1Dx Mark II has a 1-stop improvement in ISO handling when I get it later this year.

This is interesting perspective. However, 16-35 2.8 III will be smaller, lighter, will take filters and it will be easier to handle.

That's completely true, but as a PJ I'm used to carrying supertelephotos(not just at sports events!) and heavy bodies all day which makes me not adverse to carrying a 11-24. Filters also aren't much of an issue to me. One of the PJs at a sister paper uses a Nikon 14-24mm F/2.8 for almost every assignment.

I'm sure PJs aren't the only market for the 16-35mm F/2.8, but I know it has to be a big one, and if the lens ends up being $2,000+ then it'll be hard for me to justify versus an 11-24mm, which I've found deals for at $2,500.

I know this lens is a must for many marketable people that absolutely need filters, but this is just a PJ perspective.

 

[privatebydesign]

I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well. If it's too expensive, I'm going to spring for the 11-24mm, which will let me get shots so wide that very few other photojournalists could get them. Especially if the 1Dx Mark II has a 1-stop improvement in ISO handling when I get it later this year.

This is interesting perspective. However, 16-35 2.8 III will be smaller, lighter, will take filters and it will be easier to handle.

That's completely true, but as a PJ I'm used to carrying supertelephotos(not just at sports events!) and heavy bodies all day which makes me not adverse to carrying a 11-24. Filters also aren't much of an issue to me. One of the PJs at a sister paper uses a Nikon 14-24mm F/2.8 for almost every assignment.

I'm sure PJs aren't the only market for the 16-35mm F/2.8, but I know it has to be a big one, and if the lens ends up being $2,000+ then it'll be hard for me to justify versus an 11-24mm, which I've found deals for at $2,500.

I know this lens is a must for many marketable people that absolutely need filters, but this is just a PJ perspective.

I don't believe there is a big market for f2.8 users who must use filters, I believe the point is f2.8, which with increased iso capabilities has certainly lost its importance especially in the ultra wide end.

For me, I moved from the pretty bad performing 16-35 f2.8's to the wonderful 16-35 f4 IS and then on to the 11-24 f4. My favourite so far is the 16-35 f4IS, go figure.

 

[YellowJersey]

And here I just bought the 16-35 f/4 (workhorse) and the Tamron 15-30 2.8 (astro) due to the plummeting Canadian dollar and a looming price increase. I was holding out for the 16-35 2.8 III, but the dollar panic caused a... well... panic. (also happened to be in Calgary when I bought them, so I only paid 5% tax instead of 13% tax in Ontario where I'm currently living). Pulled the trigger since I know the capabilities of these lenses and they do exactly what I want them to do. The mk III is still so much of an unkown. I'm sure it'll be good, but whether it will be good for the stars is the huge unknown. If it isn't then there's no point.

So since the f/4 and the Tamron do what I want, the mk III is going to have to be pretty spectacular to get me to switch. As things stand, I have a feeling I won't be switching.

 

[RGF]

Be nice if this lens took 77mm filters, though I suspect Canon will go with 82mm.

 

[Sabaki]

I'm very keen on this lens but the f/4.0 IS version is pretty damn impressive too.

Perhaps the biggest factor for me will be the pricing. This will basically be my landscape lens and I rarely do astro more than twice a year.

I hope Canon surprises us with a reasonable price for this!

 

[Nininini]

I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well.

If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it...is a good rule of thumb with these lenses.

 

[H. Jones]

I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well.

If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it...is a good rule of thumb with these lenses.

That's a bit harsh, as someone buying the 1DX mark II I don't think there's any discussion on if I can afford it. I make my entire living off my photography, everything is just a business expense for me.

The point of my post was that if this lens costs $2,000, I'd rather buy the 11-24mm for $2,500, since I'd get a much wider angle of view from that for almost the same price.

 

[Nininini]

That's a bit harsh, as someone buying the 1DX mark II I don't think there's any discussion on if I can afford it.

Eh, it's just an expression, if you ask the price of expensive stuff, you often can't afford it. Photography is just a hobby I enjoy for myself, I'm not going to get any benefit out of professional lenses.

everything is just a business expense for me

Ah, who do you work for?

 

[cenkog]

Still no IS, no purchase, in this video age, simple is that...

We’ve received another mention of an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III. We’re told the announcement for the lens could come at any time, as the lens is “done”.</p>
<p>We have no firm announcement date, as that is always a difficult thing to nail down with lenses. With the arrival of the EOS-1D X Mark II, it makes sense that a new L lens would follow relatively quickly.</p>
<p>We do not expect to see it for the CP+ show at the end of this month.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Ozarker]

That's a bit harsh, as someone buying the 1DX mark II I don't think there's any discussion on if I can afford it.

Eh, it's just an expression, if you ask the price of expensive stuff, you often can't afford it. Photography is just a hobby I enjoy for myself, I'm not going to get any benefit out of professional lenses.

everything is just a business expense for me

Ah, who do you work for?

$2k is a huge expense for me. Huge. I don't earn money with my hobby. However, I like to have nice things. I've no kids at home. If I can raise the money I'll get one in the next couple of years if it performs well. Same with the 1DX.

Personally I get great benefit from pro lenses as a hobbyist, but everyone makes their own choices. I've got only two hobbies: Photography and guns. I'd trade all but one of my guns for a good ATV to get me way out in the desert to shoot photos.

 

[nicksotgiu]

YEAS!! ;D

 

[infared]

I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well.

The point of my post was that if this lens costs $2,000, I'd rather buy the 11-24mm for $2,500, since I'd get a much wider angle of view from that for almost the same price.

Oh it will cost every bit of $2000. I predict more. The intro prices on all of the new 2.8L zooms has been very high.
I was shocked that the 16-35mm f4L IS was so reasonable (sold my 16-35mm f2.8L II to buy one. Great decision.),but I bet Canon brings the hammer down with the new 2.8 III. I think they may FINALLY produce a GREAT fast wide zoom...as they have a delivered mediocrity to this point for that particular zoom range at 2.8.
The f/4L is fabulous and based on all their recent L zooms, I bet this new one is stunning optically. I will pass based on the price....my f/4 has me smiling enough. (I supplement it with a Sigma 20mm f/1.4 for when I need wide with speed!).

 

[Hector1970]

I'm sure a 16-35mm F2.8 III will do well for Canon,
At a number of indoor events I'd have loved an extra stop of light.
But I have to say I'm very happy with the 16-35mm F4.
I think its a great lens.
I might wait until the 16-35mm F2.8 IV IS before getting a 16-35mm F2.8 III

 

[ewg963]

I would bet good money that a 1D X Mark II and the Series III 16-35mm are at Super Bowl 50.

I hope that Canon instead releases a 16-35/2.8 with IS.

+100000000 fingers crossed about the IS!!!!