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

[RGF]

In addition to the 16-35 I use the Canon 14 when I need to go wider. At times I want wider, so the 14-24 would fit the bill.


In the ideal world there would be a small overlap among each of the trinity lens. Perhaps 14-30, 24-80 and 70-200.

 

[Deleted member 20471]

I want a 16-35/4 IS (like the Nikon).

+1

 

[killswitch]

Definitely would like a 16-35 MKIII over 14-24 for few reasons

1) Non bulbous front element, so that we can use screw in filters.
2) the focal range 16-35 is just so much versatile and can be used in/for so many applications/purposes.
3) 82mm is the new 77mm (for those who also own 24-70 MKII).

Can't remember if there was any rumour regarding an update for this lens, was there?

 

[Brendon]

+1 for the updated 16-35. Give me something close to the 35 1.4 color, contrast, sharpness and distortion at the narrow end. Let the distortion go at 16mm since everything normally looks distorted because of the perspective anyway.

I've started using the 16-35 regularly at weddings for dance floor photos during the reception. I like the fact that I can get the 35 mm if I want to move in and just get a couple dancing...I wouldn't be able to do this well at 24mm. My only real gripe is that it just doesn't have the color and contrast of the 35 prime. I can forgive some corner softness (there is a lot of it now) but the "pop" just isn't there.

 

[tron]

Definitely would like a 16-35 MKIII over 14-24 for few reasons

1) Non bulbous front element, so that we can use screw in filters.
2) the focal range 16-35 is just so much versatile and can be used in/for so many applications/purposes.
3) 82mm is the new 77mm (for those who also own 24-70 MKII).

Can't remember if there was any rumour regarding an update for this lens, was there?

I do not think there is one. Not that would matter much though.
For some reason I prefer the real products from just rumors... ;D ;D ;D

 

[pwp]

A 14-24 f/2.8 would be a very cool lens, negatives include the inevitable stratospheric price and the inevitable bulbous, vulnerable front element that couldn't take filters. For my priorities, use and needs, such a lens would come a fairly close second to an upgraded 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII. Currently my very occasional ultra-wide needs are handled by a very good copy of the Sigma 12-24. These are OK lenses for occasional careful use, but YMMV.

The current 16-35 f/2.8II is a usefully competent lens, but not one that anybody could describe as consistently stellar. Used carefully, it does the job pretty well. The new 24-70 f/2.8II has given us a taste of what Canon is capable of, but given the usual life spans of Canon glass, I doubt there will be a 16-35 f/2.8III for quite some time.

-PW

 

[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.

 

[tron]

A 14-24 f/2.8 would be a very cool lens, negatives include the inevitable stratospheric price and the inevitable bulbous, vulnerable front element that couldn't take filters. For my priorities, use and needs, such a lens would come a fairly close second to an upgraded 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII. Currently my very occasional ultra-wide needs are handled by a very good copy of the Sigma 12-24. These are OK lenses for occasional careful use, but YMMV.

The current 16-35 f/2.8II is a usefully competent lens, but not one that anybody could describe as consistently stellar. Used carefully, it does the job pretty well. The new 24-70 f/2.8II has given us a taste of what Canon is capable of, but given the usual life spans of Canon glass, I doubt there will be a 16-35 f/2.8III for quite some time.

-PW

+1 A 16-35 f/2.8III that has IQ comparable to 24-70 2.8 II would be ideal. I would get that lens to use with my Lee filter base. Now it seems we will wait a few more years ...

 

[luciolepri]

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?

Absolutely!!!

 

[RGF]

I use my 14 a lot, so a 14-24 would be more useful than a 16-35 M3. Keyis IQ.

Both will be expensive - pick a number. I expect around $2500, maybe even $3000

 

[pedro]

I did some 16-35 tests at ISOs 51k and 102k this week. For my type of photography the improvement at the moment lies rather in sensor tech than lenses. With the F/2.8 wide open I got down as low as 1/6 at 51k to be able to take the same photograph exposed to the right as I took here with the 50 F/1.4 at 1.6. So, gathering as much light as possible is imperative for me. Enhanced sensor tech will result in better IQ at weird ISOs like these. Sorry, my post is slightly out of topic. But almost wide open I got 1/60 at 51k and 1/100 at 102k with the 50 f/1.4. (this includes quite some PP in DPP for the 102k shot). Instead of an improved WA zoom therefore I'd opt for an 35 f/1.4 as a combo along with a later 5D body update. But I can understand, that upcoming high MP count bodies might requiere improved lens tech first, so hopefully Canon are able to combine both things.


5D3 extreme ISOs sample 1 by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
ISO 51.200


5D3 extreme ISOs sample 2 by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
ISO 102.400


Moonlight51kVersion I by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
WA Sample ISO 51.200

 

[drjlo]

When I had the 16-35 II, I never dared put it through iso 102,4K, but I find DPP's noise reduction is not as good as a good dedicated program like Noisware, which I used to redo the image below with just a subtle additional noise reduction while trying to preserve detail. Obviously, working with original RAW would have been better.. Hope you don't mind.


isotestNW by drjlo1, on Flickr

 

[pedro]

@drjilo: you did great! Thank you. I dare to do everything, as I pushed tri-X film to at least ISO 1600 or 3200 back in the day which looked kinda like the 5D3's ISO 51k today ;D I know about the downsides of DPP in PP. Looking forward to LR some time later this year. What are your highest ISOs you take pictures at? Kind regards from Switzerland. Peter

 

[drjlo]

@drjilo: you did great! Thank you. I dare to do everything, as I pushed tri-X film to at least ISO 1600 or 3200 back in the day which looked kinda like the 5D3's ISO 51k today ;D I know about the downsides of DPP in PP. Looking forward to LR some time later this year. What are your highest ISOs you take pictures at? Kind regards from Switzerland. Peter

I'm still kind of old school when it comes to iso and try to keep it below 6400 whenever possible. I stick to ISO 100 for studio shooting with controlled lighting.

 

[pedro]

@drjilo: you did great! Thank you. I dare to do everything, as I pushed tri-X film to at least ISO 1600 or 3200 back in the day which looked kinda like the 5D3's ISO 51k today ;D I know about the downsides of DPP in PP. Looking forward to LR some time later this year. What are your highest ISOs you take pictures at? Kind regards from Switzerland. Peter

I'm still kind of old school when it comes to iso and try to keep it below 6400 whenever possible. I stick to ISO 100 for studio shooting with controlled lighting.

There is much truth to that. With the 30D I never went higher than ISO 800 and ISO 1600 was for emergencies only. Usually I stay around ISO 6400 as well. But as I like to push myself to the limits photographywise I wanna know what lies beyond the rainbows end. So, I am all for high ISOs at lowest available light possible. Here's one of my late cat, taken sometime early this year, at ISO 51k aswell. There was a tiny bit of light fingering into the room. Didn't even see the cat correctly, had to focus on the white parts of its ears instead
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12258.0

 

[TexPhoto]

i was a nikon user and owned a 14-24mm. It was ina word, awsome. I really want the Canon vertion, ad hope it is as good or better. Either way 14 or 16 it will be $$$$.

 

[luciolepri]

I'm still kind of old school when it comes to iso and try to keep it below 6400 whenever possible.

That made me smile. I remember a few years ago, when, in extreme situations, you would buy a 400 ISO reversal film (possibly a Provia F, the others had too much grain, washed-out blacks and lifeless colours).
Despite my age, I felt like coming from another era, for a moment...

 

[BagJunkie]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

@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.

 

[M.ST]

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