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

[Zv]

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

Newbie for AWA . I just bought the 17-40 F/4 during the 15% off last week. I am not sure if I need to keep it or return based on this announcement or just buy a lens like Samyang 14mm (with manual focus).

Shoot her in F4 F5.6 F8 and see if the image is good enough for your use. If you want to print large sizes, I imagine it will be a little disappointing in F4, but must be sufficiently sharp in F11.

I have both the Samyang 14mm and 17-40L and after some testing of both I found my copy of the 17-40L to be rather good from f/8 - f/11, which is where I use it most often. At 17mm the image is sharp and even the corners look acceptable to me. I love the Samyang but the bottom left corner of my copy is softer than the others even stopped down. But the overall IQ is great for the price.

I'm gonna wait for the price to drop on the 16-35IS a bit, maybe in about a year once I've saved up and in the meantime shoot with what I have. I think you should just get the Samyang anyway, it's a really fun lens!

Link to some pics taken with the Samyang - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20898.msg395994#msg395994

 

[Eldar]

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

This thread went from 0 to 6 pages in less than 12 hours ... I dare say there is some interest :

It looks interesting to me, but I was hoping for the 12/14-24mm super UWA. Guess I´ll be waiting a bit longer ...

 

[Slyham]

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

Smart moves by Canon. As an enthusiast I will speak to the entry level Canon gear. Canon greatest competitor to their entry level gear is not Nikon or Sony, it’s the smartphone. How is Canon responding? Very well in my opinion.

It was just over a year ago that Canon announced the 18-55 IS STM lens. Then came the 55-250 IS STM lens. Now the 10-18 IS STM lens. All entry level, all very affordable, and as for the 18-55 and 55-250, a huge improvement over their predecessor.

All lenses have STM. An improvement over micro-motor for stills and awesome for video.

All lenses are rear focusing with no rotation or extension while focusing. A huge improvement when working with a CP filter. They also have full time manual focus in some form. These focus characteristics where only found in much more expensive lenses.

Assuming the 10-18 is at least as sharp as the 18-55 and 55-250, all these lenses have great IQ for the price.
So in a matter of a year and a half Canon has significantly improved its entry level line up of lenses.

The next move is to put a DPAF sensor in a Rebel. That Rebel kitted with 10-18, 18-55, and 55-250 for about $1200 would be a killer kit.

 

[ahsanford]

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

Yea! In "the year of the lens", we've started out with two lenses no one asked for.

Speak for yourself, but not for everybody. I for one certainly welcome a new Canon ultrawide zoom if it offers improved corner resolution and sharpness.

Ditto. Especially if you already own a 17-40L and sell it to fund the new 16-35L IS. As I think about it more, this be nice for IS video too.

I have owned the 17-40L for a long time (wonderful lens), and have thought of selling it without buying a direct replacement. I find I use my 15mm fisheye at least 20 times more than the rectilinear ultrawide.

My point was, no one asked for this. People seem to have been clamoring for a14-24/2.8 instead of a 16-35/4 with IS.

People clamor for focal lengths that are not currently offered, but all the landscape guys (who aren't shooting Zeiss or adaptored 14-24s) have been asking for a sharper cornered 16-35 or 17-40 for ages. This lens has demand and, based on the MTF charts, will sell quite well.

- A

 

[tron]

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

A 14mm prime and a 16-35 are very different tools. Even the difference between 14 and 16 is marked, I can't see how a 16-35 would replace that.

+1 especially since the zoom is an f/4 lens making it less suitable for landscape astrophotography.

 

[RLPhoto]

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

Yea! In "the year of the lens", we've started out with two lenses no one asked for.

Speak for yourself, but not for everybody. I for one certainly welcome a new Canon ultrawide zoom if it offers improved corner resolution and sharpness.

Ditto. Especially if you already own a 17-40L and sell it to fund the new 16-35L IS. As I think about it more, this be nice for IS video too.

I have owned the 17-40L for a long time (wonderful lens), and have thought of selling it without buying a direct replacement. I find I use my 15mm fisheye at least 20 times more than the rectilinear ultrawide.

My point was, no one asked for this. People seem to have been clamoring for a14-24/2.8 instead of a 16-35/4 with IS.

Again, speak for yourself. I don't own a fish eye and never would own one but a rectilinear UW gets much use. I do believe many have asked for a sharper 17-40L.

 

[Schruminator]

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

This lens looks solid, but after selling my 24-105 I swore I'd never buy f/4 or slower again. On top of that, I'm a huge fan of night time and star shots-- so besides the f/4, I'm curious to see if the coma will be well controlled. My fingers are crossed for a 2.8 non-IS to come out on the coattails of this lens.

(And yes, I know all about Samyang's lenses and I've owned one or two, but I'm just not a fan of the build quality and lack of AF)

 

[Zv]

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

Smart moves by Canon. As an enthusiast I will speak to the entry level Canon gear. Canon greatest competitor to their entry level gear is not Nikon or Sony, it’s the smartphone. How is Canon responding? Very well in my opinion.

It was just over a year ago that Canon announced the 18-55 IS STM lens. Then came the 55-250 IS STM lens. Now the 10-18 IS STM lens. All entry level, all very affordable, and as for the 18-55 and 55-250, a huge improvement over their predecessor.

All lenses have STM. An improvement over micro-motor for stills and awesome for video.

All lenses are rear focusing with no rotation or extension while focusing. A huge improvement when working with a CP filter. They also have full time manual focus in some form. These focus characteristics where only found in much more expensive lenses.

Assuming the 10-18 is at least as sharp as the 18-55 and 55-250, all these lenses have great IQ for the price.
So in a matter of a year and a half Canon has significantly improved its entry level line up of lenses.

The next move is to put a DPAF sensor in a Rebel. That Rebel kitted with 10-18, 18-55, and 55-250 for about $1200 would be a killer kit.

I agree, with an SL1 and these three EF-S lenses plus maybe one small fast prime like the 35mm f/2 IS it would be an ideal travel around the world kind of kit. You could fit that in one small backpack easily.

I think the EOS M system could use a 55-250mm lens too.

 

[mackguyver]

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

My point was, no one asked for this. People seem to have been clamoring for a14-24/2.8 instead of a 16-35/4 with IS.

No one you know, perhaps, but there has been a lot of demand for this type of lens and the vast majority of UWA shots (if you tally up 500px, Flickr, etc.) are shot at f/8 or above, so f/4 is plenty fast. Nikon's competitor is a best seller so this lens makes a lot of sense and I predict that Canon will sell a ton of them, particularly since they are introducing it at a realistic price.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

Again, speak for yourself. I don't own a fish eye and never would own one but a rectilinear UW gets much use. I do believe many have asked for a sharper 17-40L.

If you are in the 14mm rectilinear market, and many are not, then the original Canon EF 15mm fisheye defished beats the pants off many, including, in my experience (with two different models), the Canon 14mm MkII.

The fisheyes are way more than just a silly niche, they can be put to very creative use, software expands that potential exponentially and at very high IQ levels.

 

[Slyham]

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

I think the EOS M system could use a 55-250mm lens too.

Agreed. And release the 11-22 for Canon USA. :

I think Canon should release a DPAF Rebel and M at the same time and watch the sales numbers. I think that would help determine where mirrorless stands in the entry level market.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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

Yea! In "the year of the lens", we've started out with two lenses no one asked for.

Speak for yourself, but not for everybody. I for one certainly welcome a new Canon ultrawide zoom if it offers improved corner resolution and sharpness.

Ditto. Especially if you already own a 17-40L and sell it to fund the new 16-35L IS. As I think about it more, this be nice for IS video too.

I have owned the 17-40L for a long time (wonderful lens), and have thought of selling it without buying a direct replacement. I find I use my 15mm fisheye at least 20 times more than the rectilinear ultrawide.

My point was, no one asked for this. People seem to have been clamoring for a14-24/2.8 instead of a 16-35/4 with IS.

Again, speak for yourself. I don't own a fish eye and never would own one but a rectilinear UW gets much use. I do believe many have asked for a sharper 17-40L.

+1.
It is amazing how people who make sure to collect data before making a move in their professional lives just through ideas and speculations in the air without any evidence to the contrary.
One can say 'I'm not aware of anyone asking for this' but to say 'I'm aware no one asked for this' is plain ignorant.
Btw, Canon conducts market research before releasing products and doesn't rely on speculations.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

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

Yea! In "the year of the lens", we've started out with two lenses no one asked for.

I remember hearing many people here in CR asking for a 16-35mm sharp from corner to corner, rather than the mythical 14-24mm. : The neighbor's grass always looks greener. 8)

 

[infared]

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.

Sure the EF-S looks a good price, but the 16-35 is a 17-40 replacement, at 150% the price. Not saying I feel the 16-35 is particularly expensive, and I very much doubt Sigma had anything to do with it at all, just pointing out it is 150% more than the lens it is replacing with less zoom range.

I do not think of the 16-35 as having less zoom range......17-16mm is more significant than you would think.
Also...I returned my 17-40mm in one day because the zoom "throw" of the zoom ring was non-existent at the wide end....like super abrupt....not spread out like at the other end. I know everyone has a different take and no one is right or wrong..but I just don't need 35-40mm. I have a 24-70mmII an the 16-35mm II now...If I am going out with just zooms..its a nice overlap...the 16-35mmII is weakest (sharpness) at the 35mm end...and the other lens handles that area quite handily......
I bought the 17-40mm initially to save money and ended up getting rid of that notion! LOL!

 

[mackguyver]

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

I have a 24-70mmII an the 16-35mm II now...If I am going out with just zooms..its a nice overlap...the 16-35mmII is weakest (sharpness) at the 35mm end...and the other lens handles that area quite handily......

Have you compared them at 24mm as well? I took a shot of a Live Oak covered in Spanish moss and the resolution difference between the two was shocking. It looked like the 16-35II was out of focus (I manually focused using LiveView) in the center and the corners, well, I don't even want to go there. I really like the 16-35 focal length and ability to use filters, but compared to my other lenses, the 16-35 II is a disappointment.

And I agree, the 1mm of difference is a lot more than you'd think.

 

[fox40phil]

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

B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?

thx for the info!

 

[mrsfotografie]

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

Aside from the focal length range (16mm is nice but 35 mm is limited) the lens did gain girth and weight compared to the 17-40 which is an important part of my travel kit. I replaced the Tamron 70-300 with the 70-300L this year and that was already a significant increase in weight, so before long my 'travel kit' will become too heavy and/or bulky. Travel kit = 17-40L, 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.8, 24-105L, 70-300L, 5D Mk II(I) gripless.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Sure the EF-S looks a good price, but the 16-35 is a 17-40 replacement, at 150% the price. Not saying I feel the 16-35 is particularly expensive, and I very much doubt Sigma had anything to do with it at all, just pointing out it is 150% more than the lens it is replacing with less zoom range.

I do not think of the 16-35 as having less zoom range......17-16mm is more significant than you would think.
Also...I returned my 17-40mm in one day because the zoom "throw" of the zoom ring was non-existent at the wide end....like super abrupt....not spread out like at the other end. I know everyone has a different take and no one is right or wrong..but I just don't need 35-40mm. I have a 24-70mmII an the 16-35mm II now...If I am going out with just zooms..its a nice overlap...the 16-35mmII is weakest (sharpness) at the 35mm end...and the other lens handles that area quite handily......
I bought the 17-40mm initially to save money and ended up getting rid of that notion! LOL!

Oh, I am sorry, I was using the decimal numerical system, in that system the range 16-35 has 4 digits fewer than 17-40 hence my confusion on smaller range.

As for what I think of the 1mm difference between 16 and 17, well funnily enough I have a 16-35 and on two occasions it has gone to Canon and come back with faulty zoom range, it only went to 17 as per the EXIF, I only noticed because of that EXIF and didn't bother returning it until it needed other work anyway. A lot depends on the "true" focal length we actually get when we focus closer than infinity anyway. I have noticed a decent difference between 16mm on zooms and the 14mm primes, but I suspect that is partly to do with the zooms actual focal length being distorted and the prime being closer to "true".

 

[privatebydesign]

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

I have a 24-70mmII an the 16-35mm II now...If I am going out with just zooms..its a nice overlap...the 16-35mmII is weakest (sharpness) at the 35mm end...and the other lens handles that area quite handily......

Have you compared them at 24mm as well? I took a shot of a Live Oak covered in Spanish moss and the resolution difference between the two was shocking. It looked like the 16-35II was out of focus (I manually focused using LiveView) in the center and the corners, well, I don't even want to go there. I really like the 16-35 focal length and ability to use filters, but compared to my other lenses, the 16-35 II is a disappointment.

And I agree, the 1mm of difference is a lot more than you'd think.

I have noticed, with my 16-35, it is very particular and susceptible to IQ variation over time. I don't pamper my gear, though I don't treat it badly (well maybe a bit), but of all my lenses the 16-35 is the easiest to get out of true, whereas all my other lenses are all much more consistent.

 

[mackguyver]

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

I have a 24-70mmII an the 16-35mm II now...If I am going out with just zooms..its a nice overlap...the 16-35mmII is weakest (sharpness) at the 35mm end...and the other lens handles that area quite handily......

Have you compared them at 24mm as well? I took a shot of a Live Oak covered in Spanish moss and the resolution difference between the two was shocking. It looked like the 16-35II was out of focus (I manually focused using LiveView) in the center and the corners, well, I don't even want to go there. I really like the 16-35 focal length and ability to use filters, but compared to my other lenses, the 16-35 II is a disappointment.

And I agree, the 1mm of difference is a lot more than you'd think.

I have noticed, with my 16-35, it is very particular and susceptible to IQ variation over time. I don't pamper my gear, though I don't treat it badly (well maybe a bit), but of all my lenses the 16-35 is the easiest to get out of true, whereas all my other lenses are all much more consistent.

That's possible, though I haven't used my 16-35 nearly as roughly as my other gear, but in reality, I think it's just the difference in lenses or maybe I got a really amazing copy of the 24-70 II.