Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Camera

[dlleno]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

ok I'm tired of seeing arguments about how no one asked for a lens that several of us want and a few have already ordered.

I'm more interested in this topic:

You are 100% dead on. You could just as easily have replaced my three bullet point idea with:

• Do something unnecessary.
• Do something unnecessary.
• Lee solves the problem with epically large hardware.

The first two ideas I offered were just make the nasty magic wand / deus ex machina solution of 'a company solving it' less big than it might have to be. For instance, I haven't done the trig, but the first two bullet points might keep filters down to 6" wide, but not doing those two things might require 8" filters.

- A

You are spot on. I just ran first order approximation, using a 98 degree horizontal viewing angle and assuming that 77mm diameter threads occur right at the viewing angle boundary. In order to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle at 2 inches beyond this point, the filter surface would have to be 193mm wide. Add margin to that and you are right at 8" just to place something two inches beyond the lens -- and lenses that have 82mm fronts are even worse. I doubt that is going to happen though-- it is 4x the filter surface area and probably 10x the cost.

This isn't too hard to visualize though. if our filter is only 100mm and the front diameter is already 77mm (or 82mm), then you can see that the 100mm filter will have to be placed very close to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle.

using a 150mm instead of a 100mm filter would buy us some, but again the cost...

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

You are spot on. I just ran first order approximation, using a 98 degree horizontal viewing angle and assuming that 77mm diameter threads occur right at the viewing angle boundary. In order to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle at 2 inches beyond this point, the filter surface would have to be 193mm wide. Add margin to that and you are right at 8" just to place something two inches beyond the lens -- and lenses that have 82mm fronts are even worse. I doubt that is going to happen though-- it is 4x the filter surface area and probably 10x the cost.

This isn't too hard to visualize though. if our filter is only 100mm and the front diameter is already 77mm (or 82mm), then you can see that the 100mm filter will have to be placed very close to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle.

using a 150mm instead of a 100mm filter would buy us some, but again the cost...

What about making a UWA landscape lens with a super dainty front element diameter, like a 58mm or something? I imagine it would be the world's first 16mm F/6.3 lens (;D), but it lets us apply the 'solve the WA vignetting problem with huge filter hardware' idea on a smaller context, i.e. as a multiple of a smaller starting diameter value.

The other fix, of course, is to make each layer of the filter sandwich thinner, i.e., thinner slots. I imagine that this will lead to more fragile glass filters or more flexible resin filters, neither of which are a good thing.

dlleno, I don't know if this is a problem we solve or if it's just a reality we cope with.

(Saying this, I imagine some crusty landscape pro with 30 years of experience shooting Cornwall's shores, all the while holding filters in front of the lens with his frozen hands at dawn, eyeballing his exposure, fiddling with a 40 pound wooden tripod in driving winds, 'it was uphill both ways', etc. just snorted out a "Took those punks long enough to figure that one out.")

- A

 

[dlleno]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

lol you're right about us punks just figuring this out. Unless the lens mfg comes out with a proprietary mounting and filtering system using custom gels OE from the likes of Lee I don't think and easy answer is coming soon. BTW I don't know enough about the lens geometries to make any generalizations but the benefit of stopping down has to be greater than zero. meanwhile we could get some relief from a 150mm filter and hopefully a more compressed foundation to keep things close; I suspect there aren't many 16mm photos with the benefit of all three: ND grad, ND, and CPL.

I guess one thing that gave me pause was the very expensive approach of a 105mm adapter plus a 105mm CPL without a prayer of using the UWA FLs . that puts the most expensive piece of glass, and one that requires find adjustment, the furthest away from the lens, making it the largest component. the component that needs to be the furthest away would be the cheapest -- an 8" straight ND for example.

I haven't tried any of this before, so forgive my ignorance: but suppose one could keep the adjustable elements close to the lens, i.e. a 4" nd Grad and a 4 "CPL, and then hand hold a large ND in front of that assembly, would that work? how often would one need a three-element setup that included a 10 stop ND?

 

[sagittariansrock]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

You are spot on. I just ran first order approximation, using a 98 degree horizontal viewing angle and assuming that 77mm diameter threads occur right at the viewing angle boundary. In order to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle at 2 inches beyond this point, the filter surface would have to be 193mm wide. Add margin to that and you are right at 8" just to place something two inches beyond the lens -- and lenses that have 82mm fronts are even worse. I doubt that is going to happen though-- it is 4x the filter surface area and probably 10x the cost.

This isn't too hard to visualize though. if our filter is only 100mm and the front diameter is already 77mm (or 82mm), then you can see that the 100mm filter will have to be placed very close to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle.

using a 150mm instead of a 100mm filter would buy us some, but again the cost...

What about making a UWA landscape lens with a super dainty front element diameter, like a 58mm or something? I imagine it would be the world's first 16mm F/6.3 lens (;D), but it lets us apply the 'solve the WA vignetting problem with huge filter hardware' idea on a smaller context, i.e. as a multiple of a smaller starting diameter value.

The other fix, of course, is to make each layer of the filter sandwich thinner, i.e., thinner slots. I imagine that this will lead to more fragile glass filters or more flexible resin filters, neither of which are a good thing.

dlleno, I don't know if this is a problem we solve or if it's just a reality we cope with.

(Saying this, I imagine some crusty landscape pro with 30 years of experience shooting Cornwall's shores, all the while holding filters in front of the lens with his frozen hands at dawn, eyeballing his exposure, fiddling with a 40 pound wooden tripod in driving winds, 'it was uphill both ways', etc. just snorted out a "Took those punks long enough to figure that one out.")

- A

How about this for wacky? A curved (along one meridian) filter holder with flexible filters. The curve closely follows the spheroidal front element, and the holder brackets are (rotatable) along the vertical margins of the frame to minimize vignetting, and have spring rollers to allow sliding up/down of the

 

[dlleno]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

that's some creative thinking, to be sure! so my only worry here is that light does weird stuff when passing through curved media, so my first thought here is phys 201 where we learned that angle of incidence = angle of reflection. Light transmission is going to be critical when three external media surfaces are used, especially if two of the three have to be rotated and/or otherwise critically adjusted with respect to the other.

I'll yield to the optical engineers to properly express the effects of curved media and of stopping the iris down.

Well I think we've successfully torpedoed the thread. meanwhile did you say you could shoot at 16mm with TWO lee filters in the holder, for example, an ND grad and a CPL? at least one could, with such a setup, use HDR to deal with the amount of light in the scene; you just wouldn't be able to blur the water. How often do landscapers need three media AND 16mm?

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

I haven't tried any of this before, so forgive my ignorance: but suppose one could keep the adjustable elements close to the lens, i.e. a 4" nd Grad and a 4 "CPL, and then hand hold a large ND in front of that assembly, would that work? how often would one need a three-element setup that included a 10 stop ND?

ND Grad needs independent rotation control.

CPL needs independent rotation control.

Straight NDs do not need rotation control.

So your proposed option will not work in a standard Lee 2 slot setup as you'll be fighting the CPL rotation versus the ND grad rotation. Assuming your ND Grad is king for rotation, you can 'clock' your 4x4 CPL 90 degrees in the holder, but you won't be able to dial-in the degree of CPL effect -- that's a very crude adjustment.

I'd also going to rule out hand-holding either the ND Grad or 4x4 CPL to the front of the apparatus if the Big Stopper type ND is in use. You can hand-hold an ND grad for a few seconds, but not for the 30 seconds, 90 seconds, 120 second exposures needed for that.

So your options to use all three simultaneously are (and I welcome others, there all kinds of tricks here it seems):

1) Get a 105 CPL ring (from Lee), screw it into your holder, and pony up the bucks for the 105 CPL. It goes in front of your 2 slot Lee holder. Your ND and your ND Grad (or possibly just two ND grads) go in the slots. You use the outrigger/holder rotation to set your ND grad rotation, and you independently use your CPL.

Pro: Cleanest and easiest method. Oodles of flexibility.
Con: Pricey. Likely vignettes around 24mm (depends. Could be 21, could be 23, could be 25mm, depends on the lens filter thread height, if you are using a WA ring, the CPL rim height, etc.).

2) Get a tandem Lee holders that allow 4x4/4x6 filters to be independently rotated to one another. One gets the 4x4 CPL and the other gets the ND Grad. (I'd imagine the straight ND could go onto either plank of this as its not rotation dependent.)

Pro: No need for the 105 ring and CPL cost.
Con: Pretty thick? Still a vignetting on WA still a problem? I've never seen numbers on this.

3) Screw a standard CPL right on to the lens and then hook the Lee ring and holder on to that.

Pro: Super cheap as you likely already have a CPL for your lens.
Con: Each time you rotate your ND Grad, you are rotating your CPL and have to fidget to deal with that. That sounds a horrible pain in the butt. Also: Vignetting on WA is still in play as you have effectively made the lens' filter ring 'taller' by stacking a CPL on it -- you can't exactly lose those filter threads with a thin version (or this idea won't work), and the value of the Lee WA ring is lost here as well.

4) This one's a leap, but... Somehow retro fit the Lee SW150 system to work on a non-Nikon 14-24 lens? Provided you could find a way to mount it (a foam donut?), you'd get the width of the 150mm, and since it doesn't touch the front of your lens, you could possibly leave a standard CPL on it.

Pro: Possibly slays the vignetting beast on WA (no idea about that -- you may still have to aggressively index the 'lens barrel grabbing end' of this monster towards the front element to pull this off, and the on-lens CPL opportunity may be lost.
Con: Where do you start: cost, time, trouble, larger hardware, bigger filters, etc.

There is another option that is eluding me, and that might be a wiseass one, like giving up on a CPL at 16mm as it will render such inconsistent polarization and reflection control over such a wide FOV. Perhaps at FL under 24 you pull one slot out of your holder and leave one tool (the CPL, the ND or the ND Grad) in your bag...

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Well I think we've successfully torpedoed the thread. meanwhile did you say you could shoot at 16mm with TWO lee filters in the holder, for example, an ND grad and a CPL? at least one could, with such a setup, use HDR to deal with the amount of light in the scene; you just wouldn't be able to blur the water. How often do landscapers need three media AND 16mm?

And there's the rub. It's terrifying to buy expensive items from day one knowing that you are not future-proofed against a likely photographic need, so this theater of gear selection spirals into overthink very, very quickly. You want to buy, but you don't want to buy the wrong stuff, waste money, and run into limitations of what your gear can't do.

Congratulations, you have finally arrived at where I did three months ago when I bought all my gear.

That red sentence above was my personal epiphany. That notion had me go for a well-built, very 'dial-in-able' setup with the 105 ring, full well knowing that a future UWA lens purchase would need some disassembly of the holder (or if I was shooting landscapes all the time, have a pre-assembled 2nd Lee holder without the CPL ring or one of the slots, just for UWA use).

My setup is perfect down to 24mm and with a screwdriver and 10 minutes of F-ing around, I can shoot wider with 1-2 tools in play instead of 3. I'm fine with that.

But if you reeeeeally want to shoot super wide with all the toys, keep tinkering and researching the problem. Someone has figured out how to do this without requiring a mint to pull it off.

- A

 

[sagittariansrock]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Well I think we've successfully torpedoed the thread. meanwhile did you say you could shoot at 16mm with TWO lee filters in the holder, for example, an ND grad and a CPL? at least one could, with such a setup, use HDR to deal with the amount of light in the scene; you just wouldn't be able to blur the water. How often do landscapers need three media AND 16mm?

And there's the rub. It's terrifying to buy expensive items from day one knowing that you are not future-proofed against a likely photographic need, so this theater of gear selection spirals into overthink very, very quickly. You want to buy, but you don't want to buy the wrong stuff, waste money, and run into limitations of what your gear can't do.

Congratulations, you have finally arrived at where I did three months ago when I bought all my gear.

That red sentence above was my personal epiphany. That notion had me go for a well-built, very 'dial-in-able' setup with the 105 ring, full well knowing that a future UWA lens purchase would need some disassembly of the holder (or if I was shooting landscapes all the time, have a pre-assembled 2nd Lee holder without the CPL ring or one of the slots, just for UWA use).

My setup is perfect down to 24mm and with a screwdriver and 10 minutes of F-ing around, I can shoot wider with 1-2 tools in play instead of 3. I'm fine with that.

But if you reeeeeally want to shoot super wide with all the toys, keep tinkering and researching the problem. Someone has figured out how to do this without requiring a mint to pull it off.

- A

I believe Wonderpana has a system.
I just bought the 17mm TS-E which will not work with any system with full functionality, probably except for Wonderpana.
Personally, I will worry about ND and ND grad filters on it the day I run into a lot of problems, repeatedly.
Until then, I will be happy with a cap with a cheap front filter that allows me to carry the lens safely, and to meter without removing it (prior to shift, of course).

 

[dlleno]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

oh duh -- the std foundation does not offer independent rotation, which is why the outboard 105mm CPL is an attractive option. As Neuro suggested, and as my calculations confirmed, stacking holders for independent rotation does not sound good from a vignetting standpoint, so to me that's a dead end -- now I see the wisdom of the 105mm CPL. Stick with one foundation and use to ND media, with only one of them requiring rotation. Use the CPL when it is necessary.

ok so I just just came up to speed where y'all have already been.

Sagittariansrock -- thanks for the pointer to WonderPana. looks to be lens-specific'; I better do some more reading.

 

[FunPhotons]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

If they pulled it off, it would be a major major scoop over the Nikon 14-24. To my knowledge, a lack of comprehensive filtering options is the only major drawback to that lens.

And the size/weight, lack of IS and loss of 11mm at the top end compared to a 16-35mm.

With my 16-35 I have a very versatile lens for my kind of shooting - landscape with some people and general shooting. 35mm is just fine for shooting people and general but 24mm is really too wide for my taste. Likewise 14 is an unnecessary extra 2mm over the 16mm.

My 16-35mm is on my camera most of the time, but I don't like the distortion and frankly don't use the 2.8 due to poor performance. This version, where I lose one stop but gain four more via IS, in addition to 77mm filters, size (mainly in the hood), and especially IQ is a clear winner. This will be my #1 lens I'm sure.

 

[Ruined]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Reviewing further US and UK pricing and allowing for taxes the 16-35mm f2.8L II and the EF17-40mm f4L are comparable to US pricing (slightly more expensive). The 16-35 f4L however represents a 21% premium over US pricing in the UK clearly Canon Europe are extracting as much as they can out of early adopters. I will wait until the price comes down.

Converted from my currency (CZK) to USD, estimated price is 1375 incl. VAT Still, that places it 275 above 17-40/4L and 475 under 16-35/2.8L II, which according MTF and other specs still sounds like awesome deal compared to 16-35/2.8L II...

The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.

16-35 II is a different ballgame though. If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens. In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department. A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion. I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor. The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.

 

[JustMeOregon]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Well... I really didn't want to contribute to the thread-hijacking, but I just can't help myself 'cause I truly do love my Lee filters...

You can hand-hold an ND grad for a few seconds, but not for the 30 seconds, 90 seconds, 120 second exposures needed for that.

Sure you can! That's why God created gaffer's tape (on the 8th-day I think it was...)! Honestly, I do it quite often, my tripod is liberally decorated with innumerable scraps of gaff-tape just for sticky situations like this... I have found that the vignetting-culprit is the massively thick 105mm CPL and even then only with the 16-35mm wider than about 22mm on a full frame. So at those times when it's worth the hassle, I will use a 4"x4" square CPL in the front-slot of the Lee filter holder, rotate it to taste, then tape the reverse ND-grad into place. Lastly, I'll add the Big Stopper behind in the other slot. If the exposure is short enough (or I don't have the patience to deal with tape) I'll just hand-hold the reverse ND-grad during the exposure. I hope that this sounds correct, I'm typing via the search-&-destroy method on my iPad...

Now, in an attempt to get the thread back on track...

I pre-ordered the new Canon 16-35 f/4 based on how everyone was drooling over the MTF charts. My question now is, does anyone know of a lens whose sharpness/resolution did not live up to its good looking MTF chart? I'm just considering optical performance here; not AF, build quality, or anything other than image quality.

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

The Wonderpana system is very good.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17200.msg320611#msg320611

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16813.msg310758#msg310758

 

[sfunglee]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens
wonder shall I go for the 16-35 IS? worth?

also I haven't got my wide for APS-C :-[ , which should I go for?
I) New, 10-18 STM
II) Old, 10-22 USM

Thanks... 8)

 

[sanj]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.

I think same.

 

[Jamesy]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Make sure that you understand sales tax in the USA.

In New York City, buying the 16-35/f4L IS over the counter will cost you over $1300.

Except...you can't buy one today, since the lens is only available for preorder. So, you'd need to have it shipped to your location later, and unless that location is in New York or New Jersey, B&H/Adorama won't charge you sales tax on it (although you're likely responsible for paying sales/use tax in your home state).

B&H doesn't charge direct sales to NJ. Only Adorama does.

I live in Canada and B+H have an option (As do Adorama now) for "the price is the price", taxes, shipping and duty included. It is generally cheaper than buying something at the storefront and declaring it at the border as you would likely be dinged tax in NY state along with at the Canadian border. All that 'free' shipping you enjoy in the USA from the big vendors goes away as soon as the item leaves the Conus 48. That said, it is still often cheaper for us to buy cross-border.

 

[sanj]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

Reviewing further US and UK pricing and allowing for taxes the 16-35mm f2.8L II and the EF17-40mm f4L are comparable to US pricing (slightly more expensive). The 16-35 f4L however represents a 21% premium over US pricing in the UK clearly Canon Europe are extracting as much as they can out of early adopters. I will wait until the price comes down.

Converted from my currency (CZK) to USD, estimated price is 1375 incl. VAT Still, that places it 275 above 17-40/4L and 475 under 16-35/2.8L II, which according MTF and other specs still sounds like awesome deal compared to 16-35/2.8L II...

The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.

16-35 II is a different ballgame though. If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens. In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department. A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion. I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor. The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.

Absolutely

 

[FunPhotons]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

16-35 II is a different ballgame though. If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens. In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department. A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion. I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor. The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.

Good point! I was wondering if I wanted to keep my 16-35 II f/2.8. I hate bothering to sell lenses, this gives me an excuse to keep it.

 

[Skirball]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens
wonder shall I go for the 16-35 IS? worth?

also I haven't got my wide for APS-C :-[ , which should I go for?
I) New, 10-18 STM
II) Old, 10-22 USM

Thanks... 8)

Guess I have to ask why? I feel like there are so many better options for a standard zoom lens on a APS-C. Why not the 17-55? Or something like a 24-70 or 24-105 if you want an EF lens.

If you're willing to spend that kind of cash on a lens then I wouldn't be lured in by the low price of the 10-18, unless it proves to be markedly sharper, which seems unlikely. So unless you want STM for video I'd stick with the tried and true 10-22.

 

[dlleno]

Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came

I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens
wonder shall I go for the 16-35 IS? worth?

also I haven't got my wide for APS-C :-[ , which should I go for?
I) New, 10-18 STM
II) Old, 10-22 USM

Thanks... 8)

Guess I have to ask why? I feel like there are so many better options for a standard zoom lens on a APS-C. Why not the 17-55? Or something like a 24-70 or 24-105 if you want an EF lens.

If you're willing to spend that kind of cash on a lens then I wouldn't be lured in by the low price of the 10-18, unless it proves to be markedly sharper, which seems unlikely. So unless you want STM for video I'd stick with the tried and true 10-22.

+1. f/2.8 is going to be more important on the 7D, so for the required FOV the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the better choice imho for a walkabout lens, than the 16-35 f/4 IS. 16-35 f/2.8 II is certainly doable -- its corner softness will be mitigated by the crop body, and it will serve as an upgrade path to FF, but it does not give you IS in the so-called "normal" FOV region (i.e. ~28-80 FF equivalent). Note also that the 7D's AF system will benefit from f/2.8.

But to help answer the question, you need to ask: in what situations does the 16-35 f/2.8 II fail for you? what capabilities does it lack that would allow you to take better photos? what are the situations where you have a low keeper rate? If the answer is "low keeper rate due to camera shake" then you need to add IS. If the answer is "low keeper rate due to motion blur" then for sure you don't want to give up f/2.8, while IS may not be important. you can see here that the combination of IS and f/2.8 may or may not be important to you.

I would also recommend you review the meta data of your 16-35 f/2.8 II photos and see what percentage of them use f/2.8. Consider too, that the region between 35mm and 55mm may be important to you as well.

I sold both my 17-55 and 10-22 but they were important regulars in my crop body bag. Only downside to the 17-55 is that it is flare-prone and needs a front filter. FYI I had a $250 repair experience gone way bad (on my 17-55 before it sold) -- took Canon four attempts and four months to get it right, so make sure you test your copy, and beware of purchases from individuals.