Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii & The Blue Goo

[Sabaki]

Hi everybody

I have a strong suspicion that a 3rd generation 16-35mm f/2.8 will be announced soon and I believe certain aspects of it's design may be similar to the current iteration. Here's some of my guesses:

• f/2.8 - f/22
• 9 aperture blades
• MFD 25-30cm
• Length 110-115mm
• filter size 82mm
• Image Stabilization - No
• 650g - 750g
• $1600-$1800

Although the mechanics are going to be rather similar, I imagine the image quality will be vastly superior to that of the current version and I dare wonder if Canon's Blue Goo will give it an IQ superiority over the f/4.0 version too.

A wide angle with minimal to no chromatic aberrations will be a machine of beauty!

Well, that's me just thinking out loud

 

[Maximilian]

...
and I dare wonder if Canon's Blue Goo will give it an IQ superiority over the f/4.0 version too.

A wide angle with minimal to no chromatic aberrations will be a machine of beauty!

Well, that's me just thinking out loud

Question about the BR element is if and how well it will work with a zoom.
If you can use it in zoom lenses as well, it would be st*** - ah, I mean hard to understand if Canon didn't do so.

 

[9VIII]

I was looking over some wide angle lenses again today. Every time I think about something like this, my train of thought starts at "wouldn't it be great to have a high quality zoom with a nearly perfect image at 16mm", and then I look through a bunch of lens reviews only to happen across the Sigma 18-35 again, and realise there's no way an extra 2mm is worth it when the 18-35 is faster than everything else on the market and sharp across the frame wide open (and with reasonably controlled distortion).
Full frame is obviously a different equation, but it's really hard to argue against the 18-35A on crop, besides maybe the EF-S 11-18 STM for giving you amazing wide angle IQ for the price.

 

[Sabaki]

...
and I dare wonder if Canon's Blue Goo will give it an IQ superiority over the f/4.0 version too.

A wide angle with minimal to no chromatic aberrations will be a machine of beauty!

Well, that's me just thinking out loud

Question about the BR element is if and how well it will work with a zoom.
If you can use it in zoom lenses as well, it would be st*** - ah, I mean hard to understand if Canon didn't do so.

Great question.

So the BR sits between two lens elements in the 35mm, would that complicate the engineering for a zoom? In which lens group would it sit or would it sit in them all?

Max, do you know if the BR optics has an effect on coma for astro?

 

[[email protected]]

I've been eagerly awaiting a few more lens designs that have the blue goo precisely because it'll give us an indication of what can and can't be done with it - where it's most effective, etc.

As for something really sharp and wider than the 18-35 on full-frame, I do recommend the Tamron 15-30. I like mine very much.

I spent a lot of time with Canon, Sigma and Tamron options doing actual tests, and it was really down to the Tammy and Sigma 24-35 for me. For really wide stuff, the Sigma didn't cut it (and didn't have VR/IS). It will be nice when Canon catches up to the third party guys on the wide side with something faster than an f/4.

I happened to go to college at the alma mater of the fellow who became "Dr. Seuss." In his immortal words...

"Here is lots of
new blue goo now.
New goo. Blue goo.
Gooey. Goeey.
Blue goo, New goo.
Gluey. Gluey.

"Gooey goo
for chewy chewing!
That's what that
Goo-Goose is doing
Do you choose to
chew goo, too, sir?
If, sir, you, sir,
choose to chew, sir,
with the Goo-Goose,
chew, sir. Do, sir."

- the Fox in Socks

I very much doubt that this translates well into Japanese, but I would tell Canon (the Goo-Goose) that I'd be happy to chew goo with them anytime.

-tig

 

[StudentOfLight]

Is the BR element not a solid?
Is the BR element not neutral in color?

Depending on the above answers, should it be referred to as a blue goo?

 

[Maximilian]

...
and I dare wonder if Canon's Blue Goo will give it an IQ superiority over the f/4.0 version too.

A wide angle with minimal to no chromatic aberrations will be a machine of beauty!

Well, that's me just thinking out loud

Question about the BR element is if and how well it will work with a zoom.
If you can use it in zoom lenses as well, it would be st*** - ah, I mean hard to understand if Canon didn't do so.

Great question.

So the BR sits between two lens elements in the 35mm, would that complicate the engineering for a zoom? In which lens group would it sit or would it sit in them all?

Max, do you know if the BR optics has an effect on coma for astro?

Sorry, no! I didn't do any research on this.

 

[ahsanford]

I could be wrong, but I think we'll see BR solely in the L primes that are refreshed in the next 1-2 years.

But that's 16-35 f/2.8L III is coming for sure. Canon already gave the UWA zoom love to the landscape crowd with the 16-35 f/4L IS (long, long, overdue) and the interiors / architecture folks the 11-24 f/4L, so a proper UWA sports / event lens seems a certainty.

The question is, will it be sharp enough to 'reset' the L pecking order? f/2.8 zooms used to outperform (or at least match) f/4 zooms for sharpness, so when you paid the extra $$$ for the f/2.8 zoom, you justified it's purchase by saying "Not only is it better for high-speed / low light work, it can also do everything as well or better than the f/4 version."

I say the above because, of course, the 16-35 f/4L IS is a #$%^ing amazing lens, and it would take something special on the 16-35 f/2.8L III to get landscapers to abandon it.

- A

 

[[email protected]]

The blue goo term came about because the original release from Canon was so cryptic that it didn't say what phase the materials was in. It referred to it as an "organic material." My guess is that they had some poor PR person writing a release from the little documentation that was already made public, which included a patent.

Roger Cicala, in blogging about it, mused that they don't even really know if it's a solid. Thus was born the blue goo term, which stuck, as it's a light year better than the made-for-marketers-trying-to-sound-techy BR Element.

I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone for using Canon's term, but occasionally a truly appropriate, snarky term comes into the lexicon and it's unstoppable.

Or as Dr. Seuss would have responded:

Mr. Fox, sir,
I won't do it.
I can't say.
I won't chew it.

Very well, sir.
Step this way.
We'll find another game to play.

-tig

 

[ahsanford]

Max, do you know if the BR optics has an effect on coma for astro?

All we know is that the 35L II kicked the 35L I's butt w.r.t. coma:

II: http://www.lenstip.com/466.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

I: http://www.lenstip.com/170.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_1.4L_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html

...but as BR was far from the only change between the I and II versions, you can't really hang a gold medal on BR for that improvement. It could just be a superior overall optical design regardless of BR.

- A