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

Might just have to get the 16-35/4L IS. Selling the 16-35/2.8L II would cover the cost. Less than 15% of my 16-35L shots are wider than f/4, and of those a reasonable fraction are of static subjects where 3-4 stops of IS would be of more benefit than 1 stop of light. Sharper would be welcome, too.

Bummer (for me) about the 77mm filter size, as the 24-70/2.8L II and TS-E 24L II both use 82mm, as does the 16-35/2.8L II. I have the needed filters in 77mm (B+W Käsemann CPL, 10-stop ND, and the Lee WA adapter), it just means carrying them, too.

yea I'm glad I waited and was pleasantly surprised at the price. I just pre-ordered. now pondering the Lee setup and solving the vignetting issue... I'm hearing that even the Lee + 105mm adapter + B+W CPL will vignette wider than 20-ish?

 

[iMagic]

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

Good enough for neuroanatomist good enough for me. I plan on getting one.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

by putting $250 back in your pocket and being close enough

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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 think that's pretty typical of Canon's past history when adding IS to lenses - think the 70-200 f/4 vs. f/4 IS., but given the MTF curves, I think it's worth it. Also, I found this on their Japanese site:
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef16-35/index.html

that first one looks awfully sharp at the extreme edge for f/4! I assume that is FF and not APS-C test they snuck in??

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

This could be a another winner in Canon line up.

1. 4stop IS is a huge sale here. Add ND filter to it, you can have silky smooth water fall photo without tripod.
2. MTF charts look nice & clean compared to 17-40 and 16-35 II
3. Best of all, THE price tag. No need to look for 3rd party with MF

I'm putting my 16-35 II and 50L on Ebay sometimes this week. My crytal ball says 50mm is on the way... :

+1

 

[Dantana]

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

I've been stalking the Canon refurb pages waiting for a 17-40 that's both on sale and in stock. Now, I have this to consider.

I love the idea of a sharper lens, and the extra mm at the wide end. The 5mm lost at the long end is all overlap with my 24-105.

To be honest, the IS isn't that important to me. For me, a little smaller and lighter would have been more important than the IS, but maybe when I have one in my kit I'll be raving about the IS.

I'll be waiting a little on real reviews, and then on price (unless my income suddenly spikes). It does look very promising though.

 

[VitC]

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

I am not a good MTF reader :-\


Can someone explain to me the IQ difference between the 16-35 f/2.8II and the 16-35 f/4 IS based on the MTF's?
I put them here (upper images are the 16-35 f/2.8II)

Simple, more contrast (bold lines) and more sharpness in the corners (thin lines), from left to right = center to extreme borders, the higher the lines on the graph, the more transmission of contrast (bold) and sharpness (thin), usually, black lines are for wide open aperture whilst blue lines are for f/8. At least, if Canon did not change its MTF legend

EDIT: after more observation of those MTF from 16-35/4L, damn, that will be bitingly sharp at f/8. Landscapers rejoice

+1

There's a good explanation of Canon's MTF charts: http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/reading_MTF_charts.shtml

 

[Cali_PH]

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

yea I'm glad I waited and was pleasantly surprised at the price. I just pre-ordered. now pondering the Lee setup and solving the vignetting issue... I'm hearing that even the Lee + 105mm adapter + B+W CPL will vignette wider than 20-ish?

Yes, vignetting becomes an issue around then. Fortunately there are UWA adapters that set the filters closer.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87147-REG/LEE_Filters_WAR077_Adapter_Ring_77mm.html

EDIT - you can find cheaper version on eBay but I've had mixed results, where the threading wasn't as clean as the LEE version, so YMMV

 

[raptor3x]

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

Can you tell which are fisheye, which are rectilinear, which are fish and which are defished?

1. Rectilinear
2. Fisheye
3. Fisheye
4. Defished

 

[raptor3x]

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?

The only 'weather-sealed' lenses that don't have that stipulation are the super-tele lenses (not including the 300 F/4 and the 400 F/5.6).

 

[Albi86]

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

The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...

Ha ha, one can't be suspicious enough...

I think it looks good. Makes me want one even if I am not really in the market for a wide. It will be interesting to see reviews.

It's just that the really good Canon stuff is usually very, very pricey.

This lens is remarkably affordable unless we compare it to the 17-40. In that case, if performance is not a big leap forward, it's very overpriced.

 

[Ruined]

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

My two cents:

This is a much welcomed upgrade to the aged 17-40L. The MTF looks incredible and it will most definitely be sharper than the 16-35 II and 17-40.

Personally, I will be keeping my 16-35 II though for a couple of reasons:
1) I use mine for events. And, f/4 is simply not f/2.8. Less light, longer shutter speeds, potential for motion blur, increased ISO.
2) Less ability to narrow DOF with f/4. It can make a difference even at 16-35mm.

Finally, based on my testing with the 35mm f/2 IS USM, Canons IS is a lot less effective at very slow shutter speeds. Thus I would not put much excitement towards the IS.

The 16-35 II will be less sharp, but for events I believe it will be superior. This 16-35 f/4 looks like a landscape dream though.

 

[Loswr]

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?

The only 'weather-sealed' lenses that don't have that stipulation are the super-tele lenses (not including the 300 F/4 and the 400 F/5.6).

Actually, no. The requirement for a filter to complete the weather/dust sealing is explicitly stated only for those lens where an inner barrel moves behind the fixed position of the filter thread. Among current lenses, that includes the 16-35/2.8L II, 16-35/4L IS, 17-40L, and 50/1.2L. Canon does not state that a filter is required to complete the sealing of any other 'sealed' lens, although Chuck Westfall has recommended using a front filter on any sealed lens that accepts one.

 

[ahsanford]

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

Bummer (for me) about the 77mm filter size, as the 24-70/2.8L II and TS-E 24L II both use 82mm, as does the 16-35/2.8L II. I have the needed filters in 77mm (B+W Käsemann CPL, 10-stop ND, and the Lee WA adapter), it just means carrying them, too.

The 77 is great news for me -- I have 77mm B+W UV and CPL filters and a 77mm Lee wide angle ring. I haven't had to make the 82mm plunge yet.

My only hangup? The Lee setup with two slots and a monster 105 CPL in front will certainly vignette in the FL I'd be buying this lens for. So if I use this with the Lee setup, I'd need to pick my battles between ND grad, big stopper and the CPL. At 16mm, I'll probably get to use only one of three tools. But, in fairness, that's no fault of this lens, that's the reality of slapping so much stuff in front of a UWA lens.

- A

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

Exactly, not only did NOT no one ask for this, I think perhaps every single Canon user other than Lee Jay actually did ask for this and has been asking for this for some years! Looks to be awesome!

 

[ahsanford]

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

yea I'm glad I waited and was pleasantly surprised at the price. I just pre-ordered. now pondering the Lee setup and solving the vignetting issue... I'm hearing that even the Lee + 105mm adapter + B+W CPL will vignette wider than 20-ish?

Yes, vignetting becomes an issue around then. Fortunately there are UWA adapters that set the filters closer.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87147-REG/LEE_Filters_WAR077_Adapter_Ring_77mm.html

EDIT - you can find cheaper version on eBay but I've had mixed results, where the threading wasn't as clean as the LEE version, so YMMV

Yeah, the biggest issue is if you are using a CPL in front of the Lee setup, like shown on my 24-70 F/4. They are big and knock a couple mm off your useable FL without vignetting. See CPL comparison of the 105 vs the 77 rail thickness -- both are from B+W, I think many people here use that B+W 77 CPL so they can appreciate the thickness difference.

Lee's is just as big, though there are slim ones available from other manufacturers. I wanted a solid ring to control so I went with the B+W.

B+W also sells a nuts stepped one where the thread is 105mm for the Lee ring but the front is +15-20mm or so bigger (!!!) to avoid this very vignetting problem, but I opted against it for cost and lack of any reviews to speak of (at the time of my purchase in January). It is here, of curious:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/856348-REG/B_W_66_1071051_105mm_Kaesemann_Circular_Polarizer.html

Keep in mind, this forum has taught me all kinds of other ways to pull off CPL use with a Lee rig (square 4x4 if no ND grads are in the holder, 4x4 CPL with tandem holders, using a lens-sized CPL right on the lens and hooking the Lee rings into that, etc.) but all are clunky/klugy/less than ideal -- you have to choose what works best for you.

I know I'm horrifically OT, but this stuff matters in sizing up this new lens to me. I want wider than 24 but I looooove the options the Lee setup gives me. It's a classic tradeoff.

- A

 

[raptor3x]

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?

The only 'weather-sealed' lenses that don't have that stipulation are the super-tele lenses (not including the 300 F/4 and the 400 F/5.6).

Actually, no. The requirement for a filter to complete the weather/dust sealing is explicitly stated only for those lens where an inner barrel moves behind the fixed position of the filter thread. Among current lenses, that includes the 16-35/2.8L II, 16-35/4L IS, 17-40L, and 50/1.2L. Canon does not state that a filter is required to complete the sealing of any other 'sealed' lens, although Chuck Westfall has recommended using a front filter on any sealed lens that accepts one.

Hmnn, interesting, I thought even the 70-200 needed a filter to complete the weather sealing. I always thought that was a bit odd but this makes more sense.

 

[ahsanford]

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

Exactly, not only did NOT no one ask for this, I think perhaps every single Canon user other than Lee Jay actually did ask for this and has been asking for this for some years! Looks to be awesome!

Agree the new 16-35 looks terrific. But as much as we all want sharper wide lenses, there are a number of 14-24 F/2.8 holdouts that will not get in on this new 16-35.

- A

 

[unfocused]

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?

The only 'weather-sealed' lenses that don't have that stipulation are the super-tele lenses (not including the 300 F/4 and the 400 F/5.6).

Actually, no. The requirement for a filter to complete the weather/dust sealing is explicitly stated only for those lens where an inner barrel moves behind the fixed position of the filter thread. Among current lenses, that includes the 16-35/2.8L II, 16-35/4L IS, 17-40L, and 50/1.2L. Canon does not state that a filter is required to complete the sealing of any other 'sealed' lens, although Chuck Westfall has recommended using a front filter on any sealed lens that accepts one.

Hmnn, interesting, I thought even the 70-200 needed a filter to complete the weather sealing. I always thought that was a bit odd but this makes more sense.

I thought I remembered that when Canon introduced the 70-300 "L" they had some publicity photos of the lens with water droplets on the front element. I just looked it up and found this on the Canon site: "the lens is dust- and water-resistant, and now also features a newly-developed Fluorine coating that resists smears and fingerprints"

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

what planet are you on?

canon's needed a sharp corner to corner UWA zoom since the dawn of the full frame sensor on the 1Ds. most of us adapted nikkors or contax / yashica lenses because there was no other viable option until the 17mm TS-E came out.


canon's even putting their money where their mouth is .. and stating. this lens is sharp in the corners wide open with minimal CA to boot.

http://cweb.canon.jp/pdf-catalog/eos/pdf/ef-ef16-35mm-f4l-is-usm.pdf

Speaking of corner shots. I assume they did take them on FF right? And do you know what focal length those two shots were at? Maybe it says it in Japanese?