Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

[CarlTN]

@GMCPhotographics: I have been looking at the Siggy 12-24, you seem to have really good knowledge of that one. Would you say you'd recommend it to anyone? It doesn't seem to pricey, but I find it hard finding some test for full frame cameras, most are for crop cameras.

On occasions I work with a world leader in a very high end niche photography market who's main lens is the Sigma 12-24, it took him three lenses until he got one that he was 100% happy with but when he did that was it, he even prefers it to my 17 TS-E. if you get a good one the results are unmatched, but only if you need the very extreme fov.

I forget if you've said before, what kind of photography is that?

 

[CarlTN]

I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06

f/2.8 3 ED elements 5 aspherical ones, and sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, AND image stabilization!

Internal focusing, low vignette.

I really would much rather have greater flexibility and greater focal range than an ultra wide angle that only does ultra wide, and worse than this proposed lens at that.

Anyone else feel the same way?

I'm with you, the 16-35 range is far more useful than 14-24. Also, it seems to me that a Canon 14-24, will cost nearly $3000. Which is kind of absurd, considering the yen has collapsed so much lately (along with their stock market). $3000 is sort of like what $6000 used to be, to the Japanese. Kind of like selling an entry level Toyota Camry, with only a cassette player and no air conditioning, in metallic beige paint, for $60,000.

As far as lenses go, we have to take what gets built. Nobody makes the lenses I want (or at least, think that I want) either. Just as well, I couldn't afford them now anyway.

 

[J.R.]

A question which comes to my mind is - what will happen to the 14mm f/2.8L II lens if a 14-24 f/2.8 L is released by Canon? I guess the prime will be pretty much dead unless at 14mm, the zoom is NG.

I've tried out two copies of the existing 16-35 and didn't see substantial improvements over my 17-40 (which I sold). While I'd love to get a 16-35 III or a 14-24 Canon doesn't seem to be in a mood to release either of these lenses, I'll be buying the TS-E 17 next month.

 

[pedro]

I've tried out two copies of the existing 16-35 and didn't see substantial improvements over my 17-40 (which I sold). While I'd love to get a 16-35 III or a 14-24 Canon doesn't seem to be in a mood to release either of these lenses, I'll be buying the TS-E 17 next month.

Well, bought a 16-35 II used in April. The 2.8 aperture comes in very handy at low light. But as you can see in some of my posts in this thread, the 50 f/1.4 has the edge if it comes to very low light. So I might go for a Sigma 20 mm F/1.8 EX DG to compensate that, some time later...Anyone out there shooting a Sigma 20 F/1.8?

 

[privatebydesign]

After the last mails from Canon I can say, that there will be no version II of the EF 16-35 2.8 L.

Hilarious, funnily enough in my last email from Canon about the 16-35 MkII they pointed me here. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm

At least we now have confirmation of how good your hinted "insider" info really is :

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It's a pity Canon haven't looked to the Sigma 12-24mm lens as their basis for this new UWL. I think the the extra 2mm difference between the 14-24mm and 16-35mm isn't really worth the added complications of Filter worries, bubous element etc.
I think the Sigma offers some intersting features which are still lacking in every other UWL. Firstly, it's bonkers wide...I mean REALLY wide. Those extra 4mm make a BIG difference. It's a full frame lens, which unfortuantly needs really stopping down to f16. On some rouge copies the corners never really sharpen up. It's a fully corrected rectilinear lens, which means that it's the exact opposite of a fish eye. Straight lines stay straight and circles become egg shaped (fisheyes: lines become egg shaped and circles stay true). I mean exceptionally low distortion. Most UWL compromise a little barrel distortion with recilinear distortion to make them more versatile (16-35IIL / 17-40L come to mind). Which means that faces off centre don't distort too much and straight lines look straight-ish...but are easily corrected in LR / PS. This adds to their versatility. Where the Sigma 12-24mm is concearned, it's straight lines are exactly stright...uncanny! But faces tend to look very distorted if slightly off centre. What I like about the 12-24mm lens is that it's a very extream lens which compliments the 16-35IIL very well. It does all the things the 16-35IIL doesn't do. But it's less versatile as a result.
I just wished Canon decided to make an f2.8 version of the 12-24mm instead, which was sharper and didn't need f16 to get acceptable corners.

If Canon would make it 12-24 I would definetely choose that one. Love wa lenses & their perspective up-close. It would also fit nicely with my other 2 favorite holiday lenses: 24-105L & 100-400L. I have the 17-40 and chose it instead of the 16-35 because I believe it has its advantages in bright daylight & high contrast situations & the weight. And of course the pricetag, gotta love the 17-40 for that.

@GMCPhotographics: I have been looking at the Siggy 12-24, you seem to have really good knowledge of that one. Would you say you'd recommend it to anyone? It doesn't seem to pricey, but I find it hard finding some test for full frame cameras, most are for crop cameras.

Hi, I certainly wouldn't recommend it over a 16-35IIL for versatility. It's only good when stopped down to f11-16 which limits it's useage somewhat. But it's just so well corrected and SO wide. Using filters is a complete PINA...it can be done using the newer Photodiox Wondapana filter range. But it's a complete faf.
It's fairly flare resistant, but it's not Canon L lens. What it does, it does very well....what it doesn't do well...it completely fails at. It's as niche as a fisheye in that respect.
If you need a very capable Ultrawide, which goes wider than anything else....which can be shot using a tripod and doesn't need filters....where your straight lines stay straight....then this is the one to get. For everything else, the 16-35IIL is a far far better option.

 

[cpsico]

I wonder if a 14-24 would be versatile enough? A low distortion 16-35 with improved optics would make a better walk around lens for me personally.

 

[tron]

I wonder if a 14-24 would be versatile enough? A low distortion 16-35 with improved optics would make a better walk around lens for me personally.

I agree. Actually distortion is not so much of a problem. But sharpness even at the edges is an absolute must.
It will be a better walk around since it will allow the use of filters (including filter systems like Lee) and anyway 16mm is already very wide. The upper end at 35mm instead of 24mm would help to make less lens changes.
But I guess we will have to wait a few more years ...

 

[YuengLinger]

I vote for the improved 16-35mm. Less lens switching, easier filter situation. All-in-all, more practical for weddings and real-estate (interiors).

I'm still enjoying my eight year old 16-35mm version one, but if Canon (or Sigma!) could come up with an ultra-sharp from edge to edge version, especially one with significantly less distortion at the 16mm end, I'm an upgrader.

I do NOT want a $2000+ lens with a bulbous front-element that cannot be protected by a UV filter, thank you.

 

[CarlTN]

For me now, it's between the Samyang 14mm manual lens, and the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. I've already spent hundreds past my budget for this year as it is...and having to buy a new (albeit not large) tv...and not selling enough of what I need to sell to compensate.

 

[Loswr]

After the last mails from Canon I can say, that there will be no version II of the EF 16-35 2.8 L.

Really? Then why was the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II released back in 2007? :

 

[davidrf]

Is a 15-30 f2.8 with sharpness like the Nikon 14-24 an impossibile idea? Best of two worlds No IS needed. Just saying

By the way I just bought a used 16-35 and YES, I'd like a mk3.

 

[mb66energy]

I'm personally not too crazy about a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I would much much rather Canon release a further updated 16-35mm f/2.8 III, specifically based on this insane lens patent:

16-35mm f/2.8 IS Pro Lens.

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-01-06

f/2.8 3 ED elements 5 aspherical ones, and sharpness that rivals the 14-24mm wide open, AND image stabilization!

Internal focusing, low vignette.

I really would much rather have greater flexibility and greater focal range than an ultra wide angle that only does ultra wide, and worse than this proposed lens at that.

Anyone else feel the same way?

Mostly I share your arguments except these about the lens design - I am not interested in numbers of special lens elements but the result. But: aspherical surfaces help to correct aberrations with ONE LENS ELEMENT and avoid large numbers of elements - vital for ultra wides which have light sources in the frame often to increase contrast and supress flares.

A 16-35 has - with its 35mm focal length some universal character - as you said. I am someone who thinks of 100 mm as standard focal length (in terms of FF) so 35mm is a strong wide angle lens for me, but still usable for a broad range of subjects and situations.

I think an improved close focus capability of 1:4@35mm would be very interesting ... and good IQ from center to corners in terms of contrast, good color reproduction and percepted sharpness.