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

[shawnc]

Any thoughts on what this release might do to the price of the 16-35 f/4 IS? I'm about to buy, but if a $100+ price drop might be coming soon, I can wait.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Any thoughts on what this release might do to the price of the 16-35 f/4 IS? I'm about to buy, but if a $100+ price drop might be coming soon, I can wait.

No influence.
An updated 16-35 F2.8 will not change the price of F4 IS version, which is already low.

 

[Bennymiata]

Personally, I still love my 16-35 2.8 mkII.
I use it for magazine shoots of buildings and interiors and it does a stellar job.
I also use it for events where it performs admirably.

I doubt that I'll be upgrading it in the near future.

 

[David Littleboy]

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

Now bring on the 50mm 1.2 II L!

I'd recommend _NOT_ selling. The 16-35/4 IS is one sharp lens, and doing significantly better is unlikely. Unless you are shooting moving subjects, one should be much happier at f/5.6 + IS on the f/4 IS lens than at f/2.8 on the faster lens: sharper overall, much sharper corners, more DOF, and ability to shoot at one stop lower ISO (if you really get 3 stops from the IS). And that's even if the f/2.8 is a better lens at the same f stops.

Here, the 24-70/2.8 II is just a joy since it's so sharp, but for the above reasons, I'm thinking of also getting the 24-70/4.0 IS. Kinda funny that a _slower_ lens is interesting for night photography.

 

[RGF]

They need to stop making so many II and III lenses and focus on whats killing them. Dynamic Range in their bodies. I have a 5 d mark III and shoot at lowest ISO possible and I still get noise in my blacks. Canon lenses are already really good. Throw some R&D into DR!!!!!!!!!!

agree that improved DR would be nice. So would lens that have low CA, are sharp in the corners, ....


A good body will not fix a bad lens.

 

[TAW]

I watched closely at the end of the Super Bowl last night to see what lenses were used. Mostly 16-35 L lenses it seems, but I was shocked at how many 11-24 lenses I saw there too. It is obvious the guys holding the cameras way above their heads could not see the LCD or viewfinder, they were just holding down the shutter button and ripping away hundreds of shots and guessing where to point. The 11mm might be handy to make sure none of the important scene elements were cropped out.

I also saw a single 14mm II prime, some Nikon 14-24's, and even a couple Tamron 15-30 lenses.

I would love to see a new 16-35 L III if it has less vignetting and better sharpness in the corners over the previous version. They also need to keep the number of aperture blades the same. The v2 of the lens has some of the best sun stars of any lens ever made.

You have me laughing here...We are all nutz! Lens Spotting. I love it. That must be one huge & impressively sharp TV that you have there!!!!!

I was "Lens Spotting" and pausing the TV after the Super Bowl and I turned around to see my family and friends getting a good laugh! We are nutz but it is a lot of fun! In 5 minutes, I had them all helping me... Unfortunately, I think I need a sharper TV! ;D

 

[Nininini]

They need to stop making so many II and III lenses and focus on whats killing them.

Dynamic Range in their bodies.

Throw some R&D into DR!!!!!!!!!!

I love complaints about dynamic range.

1. No photographer can accurately explain what they mean with dynamic range.

2. The term "dynamic range" like some photographers use it, means nothing like what it means in science. When a scientist says "dynamic range", they are talking about things like hyperspectral imaging, not photography.

3. I have NEVER seen an actual professional photographer complain about dynamic range, ever. I have talked to several professional photographers, you know, people actually employed as journalists and or sports photographers, I have never seen any of them say anything about dynamic range. This whining about dynamic range is a very recent thing, it's like the new things to do apparently. My mother was a professional photographer for decades, she never heard the term.

4. None of the manufacturers use the same scale to define dynamic range, it's like comparing MTF charts accross brands, it makes no sense to do it.

5. The tests that sites like DxOMark use to test dynamic range, are things they made up themselves. There is no scientific basis for those tests. I love DPReview using DxOMark scores to trash Canon cameras, even though they don't really know what they're talking about when you read their replies to comments.

6. HDR photography tends to looks like S___.

7. Canon should just change their dynamic range scale so it doubles, and it would instantly bring over all the Nikon and Sony gearheads who are more worried about pointless specs than photography.


Here is one of those "pros" whining about dynamic range. He's claiming his rock is too dark because his camera's dynamic range wasn't high enough.

Maybe............just maybe...............it's because he didn't expose properly.

He then goes on saying eyes have more dynamic range, and they would see the rock differently. Yes eyes see the rock differently, because they don't expose just once, we constantly change our pupil, and we can have different exposures in different areas, because we can activate and deactivate certain cells, it has didly squat to do with dynamic range.

 

[riker]

1) Really noone else thinks it should be a 16-40/2.8 or at LEAST a 15-35/2.8?!?!?

2) I don't see why people are bringing up 11-24 they are soooo different lenses for different tasks.

I really had enough of lens upgrades which are about a bit better optical performance but nothing else, often even heavier, and most certainly way more expensive!

I use the 16-35 II ever since it was available. I'm satisfied with it's performance. The same lens with better optical quality will not help my life at all, will not result in visibly better images. If it's lighter, smaller, has wider zoom range, that would help.

 

[tron]

1) Really noone else thinks it should be a 16-40/2.8 or at LEAST a 15-35/2.8?!?!?

2) I don't see why people are bringing up 11-24 they are soooo different lenses for different tasks.

I really had enough of lens upgrades which are about a bit better optical performance but nothing else, often even heavier, and most certainly way more expensive!

I use the 16-35 II ever since it was available. I'm satisfied with it's performance. The same lens with better optical quality will not help my life at all, will not result in visibly better images. If it's lighter, smaller, has wider zoom range, that would help.

If you are satisfied with it there is no reason to complain or get a new version.

Do you shoot landscape (astro or not) though?

 

[et31]

I watched closely at the end of the Super Bowl last night to see what lenses were used. Mostly 16-35 L lenses it seems, but I was shocked at how many 11-24 lenses I saw there too. It is obvious the guys holding the cameras way above their heads could not see the LCD or viewfinder, they were just holding down the shutter button and ripping away hundreds of shots and guessing where to point. The 11mm might be handy to make sure none of the important scene elements were cropped out.

I also saw a single 14mm II prime, some Nikon 14-24's, and even a couple Tamron 15-30 lenses.

I would love to see a new 16-35 L III if it has less vignetting and better sharpness in the corners over the previous version. They also need to keep the number of aperture blades the same. The v2 of the lens has some of the best sun stars of any lens ever made.

You have me laughing here...We are all nutz! Lens Spotting. I love it. That must be one huge & impressively sharp TV that you have there!!!!!

I was "Lens Spotting" and pausing the TV after the Super Bowl and I turned around to see my family and friends getting a good laugh! We are nutz but it is a lot of fun! In 5 minutes, I had them all helping me... Unfortunately, I think I need a sharper TV! ;D

LOLOLO! Lens spotting is fun. At the beginning it was fascinating to see what lenses they were using at the World Cup Soccer games...but now actually shooting like them, there are very few (if any) new surprises. I would love to be able to spot the "1Dx MII" in the video footage, but statistically, I will see the Moby Dick lens before the body model.

Stormtrooper much? It would be amazing if someone 'shopped a Canon 800mm lens in place of the gun.
Then we could have uniforms to go with our lenses at a sporting event!

 

[Hector1970]

I'm sure each company measures dynamic range differently and its hard to describe equally to everyone but I'd find it strange you'd think it doesn't matter. Maybe you don't do landscape photography.
Not every scene can be exposed correctly with a modern DSLR. Parts of the image can be simultaneously be over exposed and under exposed. That's why LEE have built a business selling graduated filters.
It allows you underexpose the sky and overexpose the ground.
Wouldn't it be great to have a camera with great dynamic range (however that is defined) that can cope with conditions of bright and dark and neither over expose or under expose sections of the photo.
I'd say it's certainly something Canon are working towards but there are probably alot of trade-offs.
In camera HDR is pretty effective and exposure blending so there are other options currently.
If one of the major companies develops a sensor which is a great leap forward in terms of dynamic range it will be a significant advantage.

They need to stop making so many II and III lenses and focus on whats killing them.

Dynamic Range in their bodies.

Throw some R&D into DR!!!!!!!!!!

I love complaints about dynamic range.

1. No photographer can accurately explain what they mean with dynamic range.

2. The term "dynamic range" like some photographers use it, means nothing like what it means in science. When a scientist says "dynamic range", they are talking about things like hyperspectral imaging, not photography.

3. I have NEVER seen an actual professional photographer complain about dynamic range, ever. I have talked to several professional photographers, you know, people actually employed as journalists and or sports photographers, I have never seen any of them say anything about dynamic range. This whining about dynamic range is a very recent thing, it's like the new things to do apparently. My mother was a professional photographer for decades, she never heard the term.

4. None of the manufacturers use the same scale to define dynamic range, it's like comparing MTF charts accross brands, it makes no sense to do it.

5. The tests that sites like DxOMark use to test dynamic range, are things they made up themselves. There is no scientific basis for those tests. I love DPReview using DxOMark scores to trash Canon cameras, even though they don't really know what they're talking about when you read their replies to comments.

6. HDR photography tends to looks like S___.

7. Canon should just change their dynamic range scale so it doubles, and it would instantly bring over all the Nikon and Sony gearheads who are more worried about pointless specs than photography.


Here is one of those "pros" whining about dynamic range. He's claiming his rock is too dark because his camera's dynamic range wasn't high enough.

Maybe............just maybe...............it's because he didn't expose properly.

He then goes on saying eyes have more dynamic range, and they would see the rock differently. Yes eyes see the rock differently, because they don't expose just once, we constantly change our pupil, and we can have different exposures in different areas, because we can activate and deactivate certain cells, it has didly squat to do with dynamic range.

 

[infared]

I watched closely at the end of the Super Bowl last night to see what lenses were used. Mostly 16-35 L lenses it seems, but I was shocked at how many 11-24 lenses I saw there too. It is obvious the guys holding the cameras way above their heads could not see the LCD or viewfinder, they were just holding down the shutter button and ripping away hundreds of shots and guessing where to point. The 11mm might be handy to make sure none of the important scene elements were cropped out.

I also saw a single 14mm II prime, some Nikon 14-24's, and even a couple Tamron 15-30 lenses.

I would love to see a new 16-35 L III if it has less vignetting and better sharpness in the corners over the previous version. They also need to keep the number of aperture blades the same. The v2 of the lens has some of the best sun stars of any lens ever made.

You have me laughing here...We are all nutz! Lens Spotting. I love it. That must be one huge & impressively sharp TV that you have there!!!!!

I was "Lens Spotting" and pausing the TV after the Super Bowl and I turned around to see my family and friends getting a good laugh! We are nutz but it is a lot of fun! In 5 minutes, I had them all helping me... Unfortunately, I think I need a sharper TV! ;D

LOLOLO! Lens spotting is fun. At the beginning it was fascinating to see what lenses they were using at the World Cup Soccer games...but now actually shooting like them, there are very few (if any) new surprises. I would love to be able to spot the "1Dx MII" in the video footage, but statistically, I will see the Moby Dick lens before the body model.

Stormtrooper much? It would be amazing if someone 'shopped a Canon 800mm lens in place of the gun.
Then we could have uniforms to go with our lenses at a sporting event!

OK....this is officially getting scary! LOL!

 

[scottkinfw]

What part of Texas are you from?

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.

 

[scottkinfw]

+1

Launch lens to go with the shiny new 5D4? :

 

[privatebydesign]

5. The tests that sites like DxOMark use to test dynamic range, are things they made up themselves. There is no scientific basis for those tests.

Actually there is. Ask jrista.

Why, he is not a scientist!

Besides, neither DXO nor Imatest test DR as is laid out in the ISO standard, that doesn't mean they are not 'scientific' it does however mean their results are entirely arbitrary and are not suitable for comparisons across each other, and they are not necessarily representative of 'fair' when compared across camera brands.

Once you say, as a tester, I am not going to include any DR below x value you are making a subective assessment of objective measurements.

 

[canonographer]

I love complaints about dynamic range.

1. No photographer can accurately explain what they mean with dynamic range.

The range (dark to light) that a camera can properly expose for. A measure of the range of brightness that can be captured in a single photo without clipping shadows or blowing out highlights.

2. The term "dynamic range" like some photographers use it, means nothing like what it means in science. When a scientist says "dynamic range", they are talking about things like hyperspectral imaging, not photography.

Who cares how it's used in "science," it has a specific meaning in photography that a lot of people find useful in describing one characteristic of digital camera sensors.

3. I have NEVER seen an actual professional photographer complain about dynamic range, ever. I have talked to several professional photographers, you know, people actually employed as journalists and or sports photographers, I have never seen any of them say anything about dynamic range. This whining about dynamic range is a very recent thing, it's like the new things to do apparently. My mother was a professional photographer for decades, she never heard the term.

Maybe you need a larger sample size than two guys and your mother. Maybe talk to a landscape photographer from the digital age.

4. None of the manufacturers use the same scale to define dynamic range, it's like comparing MTF charts accross brands, it makes no sense to do it.

Again, who cares. As long as the manufacturer uses that scale consistently across their own line, it gives you a tool to compare different products from a single manufacturer.

5. The tests that sites like DxOMark use to test dynamic range, are things they made up themselves. There is no scientific basis for those tests. I love DPReview using DxOMark scores to trash Canon cameras, even though they don't really know what they're talking about when you read their replies to comments.

As long as DxOMark uses a consistent methodology for testing across manufacturers, they are providing an objective tool for comparing image sensors across manufacturers.

6. HDR photography tends to looks like S___.

Unless your camera is lacking the "dynamic range" to capture the full spectrum of your subject's brightness in a single shot without blowing out highlights or clipping shadows, you generally don't need HDR photography.

7. Canon should just change their dynamic range scale so it doubles, and it would instantly bring over all the Nikon and Sony gearheads who are more worried about pointless specs than photography.

Generally, dynamic range is a measure of how many stops of light can be captured between clipping shadows and blowing out highlights, so your statement doesn't make any sense.

Here is one of those "pros" whining about dynamic range. He's claiming his rock is too dark because his camera's dynamic range wasn't high enough.

Maybe............just maybe...............it's because he didn't expose properly.

He then goes on saying eyes have more dynamic range, and they would see the rock differently. Yes eyes see the rock differently, because they don't expose just once, we constantly change our pupil, and we can have different exposures in different areas, because we can activate and deactivate certain cells, it has didly squat to do with dynamic range.

I didn't watch the video, but my guess is that the photographer exposed for the sky, leaving the rock darker than he would like in his final image. If his camera has enough "dynamic range," he will be able to boost the shadows in post processing without losing any of the details that he was able to see when he was there in person.

Boosting the shadows with software like LightRoom will allow him to create a more pleasant final product that more accurately represents what he saw with his own eyes. If, on the other hand, his camera doesn't have enough dynamic range, he won't be able to boost the shadows to show the details of the rock without showing a lot of unpleasant image noise.

 

[YellowJersey]

Why are we even talking about DR in a thread about a lens?

Look, I'd like more DR out of Canon's sensors as much as the next guy. But why must every single thread turn into a DR war? Especially a lens thread where DR isn't all that relevant? There are plenty of other threads about sensors and bodies where talking about DR makes far more sense.

 

[mclaren777]

Any thoughts on what this release might do to the price of the 16-35 f/4 IS? I'm about to buy, but if a $100+ price drop might be coming soon, I can wait.

$790 is already a fantastic price for this lens.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-16-35mm-f4l-is-usm-refurbished

 

[3kramd5]

Why are we even talking about DR in a thread about a lens?

Because it was suggested that canon should stop developing series II (and rumored III) lenses and instead put that money into sensor R&D to increase an alleged fatal deficiency in dynamic range.

As a consumer, I'd rather they prioritize resources for those items which last potentially decades (like lenses) rather than several years. I'd probably like 50% (at least) going to lenses, with the remaining 50% (at most) split among sensors, processors, flash systems, shutters, cost reduction, etc. Granted, I am not a strategy officer.