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

[romanr74]

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!!!!

and then complain about size and weight... :

 

[privatebydesign]

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!!!!

and then complain about size and weight... :

People always say that and it really isn't true. The difference between the 70-200 f 4 IS and non IS is less than 2oz (75g) and they are the same size, the 70-200 f2.8 IS and non IS (of the same generation) is 5oz (160g), and the IS version is 1/10 of an inch fatter and 2/10 inch longer (1mm and 3mm).

 

[Pixel]

Debating.
I have the 11-24 and on a full frame body it's just too wide. If you're photographing people, which I do mostly, it's almost unusable at 11mm. On the 7D2 it's wonderful. But I'm using my 7D2's less and less with the arrival of my 1Dx and soon to be additional 1Dx or 1Dx2. I'm thinking a straight up trade might be in order.

 

[YuengLinger]

Debating.
I have the 11-24 and on a full frame body it's just too wide. If you're photographing people, which I do mostly, it's almost unusable at 11mm. On the 7D2 it's wonderful. But I'm using my 7D2's less and less with the arrival of my 1Dx and soon to be additional 1Dx or 1Dx2. I'm thinking a straight up trade might be in order.

Life is full of contradictions. You can't be too skinny--or too wide--or too rich.

Actually, I would be torn about turning in my f/4IS for a new 2.8, but I haven't been doing indoor events (including weddings) for about a year now. (Children change everything.)

So, on second thought, not an automatic purchase right away.

Maybe I'm maturing--I actually agree with two PBD posts in one thread!

 

[InterMurph]

I am very much looking forward to this lens. I use my 16-35mm f/2.8l II at many events, and I am always bummed out by the edge softness.

I have been reading about how great the 16-35mm f/4L IS is in comparison, and I am jealous. But I'm just not willing to give up a full stop on a lens I use indoors for the most part.

So I will definitely get the 16-35mm f/2.8L III.

 

[[email protected]]

YellowJersey, what's the relative sharpness of the Tammy versus the f/4 where their ranges overlap? I tested both lenses and was disappointed by the Canon, so I bought the Tamron. I'm curious to hear others' opinions, as it might be that I was testing a bum copy. Thanks.

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.

 

[jmoya]

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!!!!!!!!!!

 

[YuengLinger]

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!!!!!!!!!!

Off topic.

Expose correctly.

I'm guessing somebody thought this would be a funny first post. I took the bait anyway.

 

[Viper28]

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

 

[livingunique]

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

This is what I'm hoping. I do a lot of indoor events and this lens paired with a new 5D4 would be awesome.

 

[YellowJersey]

YellowJersey, what's the relative sharpness of the Tammy versus the f/4 where their ranges overlap? I tested both lenses and was disappointed by the Canon, so I bought the Tamron. I'm curious to hear others' opinions, as it might be that I was testing a bum copy. Thanks.

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.

I haven't had the chance to do much of a comparison. I've had the lenses for less than a month, but so far I'm pretty impressed with both. I do intend to do a side by side comparison. I was out on the ice on Lake Huron two days ago with the Canon and, if the back of the camera is anything to go on, I'm pretty impressed with the sharpness over my old 17-40.

I'll get back to you when I go out and test these lenses. In the meantime, I do recommend Dustin Abbott's review (both on this website and his youtube page). He does a very comprehensive comparison of these two.

I wanted to go with just the Tamron, but I do mostly landscape shooting and the filters for the Tamron are too big and clunky to be practical, especially since I do a lot of hiking and cycling trips where space is at a premium and I need to be very conscious of weight. That's why I was waiting on the 16-35 2.8 III, but the Canadian dollar decided to jump out of a plane. I suppose, if the mk III is better, I could sell my f/4 and the Tamron and buy the 2.8 at a minimal loss. We'll see.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

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.

 

[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.

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.

There is a market for event photographers (but then I do not belong to it). However, a 2.8 version with the quality of the f/4 IS lens would serve as both a landscape lens and as a (landscape) astrophotography lens. Using my 14 2.8 at night in a place where cars were passing by I felt the need for a 16-35 which will NOT have a bulbuous element and it will have a hood at the same time. Other than that 16-35 f/4 IS really rocks!

 

[PhotographyFirst]

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.

There is a market for event photographers (but then I do not belong to it). However, a 2.8 version with the quality of the f/4 IS lens would serve as both a landscape lens and as a (landscape) astrophotography lens. Using my 14 2.8 at night in a place where cars were passing by I felt the need for a 16-35 which will NOT have a bulbuous element and it will have a hood at the same time. Other than that 16-35 f/4 IS really rocks!

+1

f2.8 lenses might not be a "huge" market, but they are becoming very popular among landscape shooters who want a single lens that does it all. Better to carry a fast UWA zoom than and extra lens just for astro landscapes. The 16-35 design is a great do-it-all design for a landscape lens that can be left on the camera without lens swaps or added weight of additional gear.

 

[infared]

YellowJersey, what's the relative sharpness of the Tammy versus the f/4 where their ranges overlap? I tested both lenses and was disappointed by the Canon, so I bought the Tamron. I'm curious to hear others' opinions, as it might be that I was testing a bum copy. Thanks.

Interesting.
I sold my Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 II to buy the f/4.0L IS, upon release simply after reading extensively. I was very happy. So happy that I sold my cherished Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon(GREAT Lens! :'() as I just stopped using it. I was not aware of this Tamron 15-30mm during my change-over...perhaps it was not available at that time...not sure?
I am surprised at your findings...though. I am continually impressed with the edge sharpness of my copy of the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS. The only input I have here is to use TDP's lens comparison tool and it shows the Tamron to have considerable CA and (some) loss of sharpness in the corners @f/4.0 compared to my Canon.
I know that there are variations in copies...etc...so maybe that is what you experienced. Still....Canon's quality control is very good, especially on L lenses.
The Tamron does have the 2.8...but it is somewhat soft....With my lens on a 5D III at f/4 and a bump up in ISO and some good processing I think it would be a interesting comparison with the Tamron.
Dustin Abbott does speak very highly of the Tamron (and uses it...I guess THAT is an endorsement!), after spending a lot of time with both lenses.
I do not shoot Astro so....that aspect of these lenses does not enter into my consideration.
I also have the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 to augment my SuperWide Zoom. That is like its own interesting animal, from the standpoint of bokeh and low light shooting....but I digress....LOL!.

TDP comparison here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=986&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[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!!!!!

 

[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.

There is a market for event photographers (but then I do not belong to it). However, a 2.8 version with the quality of the f/4 IS lens would serve as both a landscape lens and as a (landscape) astrophotography lens. Using my 14 2.8 at night in a place where cars were passing by I felt the need for a 16-35 which will NOT have a bulbuous element and it will have a hood at the same time. Other than that 16-35 f/4 IS really rocks!

I never met an event photographer that used filters!

My point was not that there is no market for f2.8 lenses, there is, my point was the main difference between the 11-24 and the 16-36 f2.8's was not that the former can't take filters it is that one stop of aperture. If you can get by with f4 you already have two superb choices for ultrawide, but if you need f2.8, and fewer than ever do, then you don't have any great choices.

 

[YellowJersey]

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.

There is a market for event photographers (but then I do not belong to it). However, a 2.8 version with the quality of the f/4 IS lens would serve as both a landscape lens and as a (landscape) astrophotography lens. Using my 14 2.8 at night in a place where cars were passing by I felt the need for a 16-35 which will NOT have a bulbuous element and it will have a hood at the same time. Other than that 16-35 f/4 IS really rocks!

+1

f2.8 lenses might not be a "huge" market, but they are becoming very popular among landscape shooters who want a single lens that does it all. Better to carry a fast UWA zoom than and extra lens just for astro landscapes. The 16-35 design is a great do-it-all design for a landscape lens that can be left on the camera without lens swaps or added weight of additional gear.

That was my thinking in holding out for the mk III. That said, Canon lenses, as wonderful as they are, haven't historically been great for astro. Even the 14mm 2.8 II apparently isn't very good. All the top astro lenses also have that bulbous front element, so it makes me curious as to whether a non-bulbous front element can compete when it comes to coma in astro. I'm wondering if there's something inherent to design of a bulbous front element that makes it better (14mm 2.8 II notwithstanding).

SPECULATION: As megapixel count rises, UWAs could be more and more valuable as you have more resolution to work with. TheCameraStoreTV did an experiment with the 16-35 2.8 II shooting an airshow with the 5Ds. They just cropped and still got some nice results. Eventually, it could reach a point where you have so much resolution to work with that you just shoot crazy wide and crop whatever bits you need, similar to how 4k video shooters can downres the footage to 1080 for their wide shots and then crop for the narrow shots all from the same recording. I mean, when we get 120mp sensors, you're going to have plenty of room to work with.

 

[privatebydesign]

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!!!!!!!!!!

Can you post some of your examples of unacceptable quality?

 

[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.

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.

There is a market for event photographers (but then I do not belong to it). However, a 2.8 version with the quality of the f/4 IS lens would serve as both a landscape lens and as a (landscape) astrophotography lens. Using my 14 2.8 at night in a place where cars were passing by I felt the need for a 16-35 which will NOT have a bulbuous element and it will have a hood at the same time. Other than that 16-35 f/4 IS really rocks!

+1

f2.8 lenses might not be a "huge" market, but they are becoming very popular among landscape shooters who want a single lens that does it all. Better to carry a fast UWA zoom than and extra lens just for astro landscapes. The 16-35 design is a great do-it-all design for a landscape lens that can be left on the camera without lens swaps or added weight of additional gear.

That was my thinking in holding out for the mk III. That said, Canon lenses, as wonderful as they are, haven't historically been great for astro. Even the 14mm 2.8 II apparently isn't very good. All the top astro lenses also have that bulbous front element, so it makes me curious as to whether a non-bulbous front element can compete when it comes to coma in astro. I'm wondering if there's something inherent to design of a bulbous front element that makes it better (14mm 2.8 II notwithstanding).

SPECULATION: As megapixel count rises, UWAs could be more and more valuable as you have more resolution to work with. TheCameraStoreTV did an experiment with the 16-35 2.8 II shooting an airshow with the 5Ds. They just cropped and still got some nice results. Eventually, it could reach a point where you have so much resolution to work with that you just shoot crazy wide and crop whatever bits you need, similar to how 4k video shooters can downres the footage to 1080 for their wide shots and then crop for the narrow shots all from the same recording. I mean, when we get 120mp sensors, you're going to have plenty of room to work with.

14 2.8 II is not perfect but it is decent. Now, judging from 16-15 f/4 IS' excellent very low coma behavior I believe that the 16-35 2.8 III will excell too...