Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II Replacement in the Wild [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

We’re told that the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II replacement, is in the hands of select test photographers and should be announced some time in 2016. We’ve heard a few times that the lens may change slightly in focal length, but we can’t confirm that via a patent or person.</p>
<p>We receive little bits of information at a time in regards to this lens, but signs are pointing to it being the next L zoom that Canon releases. We suspect it’ll come some time around the EOS 5D Mark IV announcement, as it is generally considered a wide angle zoom event lens, though it does crossover into other uses.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>

 

[nicksotgiu]

I'm actually really excited about this one!!!

 

[adventureous]

Just don't announce it April 1st. Any day but that.

 

[Click]

I'm actually really excited about this one!!!

+1

 

[ahsanford]

We’re told that the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II replacement, is in the hands of select test photographers and should be announced some time in 2016. We’ve heard a few times that the lens may change slightly in focal length, but we can’t confirm that via a patent or person.

You just had to dangle a 14-24 f/2.8L possibility, didn't you?

My money is on a vanilla 16-35 f/2.8L III with improved optics. No IS.

Needs to be front-filterable, so I don't see a 14-24 coming here.

Nor do I see IS, but that's less sure of a bet. Throughout the FL range, Canon is inconsistent on this.

- A

 

[steliosk]

if it is as good as the f/4 IS version and with the right price, count me in

 

[ahsanford]

if it is as good as the f/4 IS version and with the right price, count me in

I'm amazed the astro camp hasn't said "it'd better be coma free or no sale" yet. :

- A

 

[Ozarker]

The obsessive compulsive in me thinks 16-24mm would be great. That way there's no overlap with the 24-70... well, one mm. Then there would be a choice between super wide and ultra wide.

 

[nda]

I've heard a rumour from some friend of a friend of a etc... he is testing a 15-35 or 15-30 2.8, it's a new lens not a mark iii, no IS.

 

[wsmith96]

I've heard a rumour from some friend of a friend of a etc... he is testing a 15-35 or 15-30 2.8, it's a new lens not a mark iii, no IS.

I was thinking the same thing- something similar to the new tamron. That'll make 3 new USA lenses in a short period of time. I get the f/4 to f/2.8 need, but I don't get the 11-24 and 16-35 need. It seams that the 16-35 f/4 wouldn't be needed anymore other than for cost considerations.

 

[enice128]

Somewhere i thought it was mentioned to be a faster lens. I personally am hoping this be true since it is my main event lens & hate that it is not as fast when i switch to my 70-200!

 

[kaptainkatsu]

I just bought a 16-35 f4 and love it. I could have afforded the 2.8 but passed over it due to the f4 being a sharper lens. If the new lens is just as sharp or sharper, I'd sell the f4 to get an extra stop of light. I'd love to have IS but we can't have it all can we.

 

[NancyP]

I could well see a landscape photographer who does NOT do astro-landscape choosing the 16-34 f/4 over the f/2.8 II or III. If one tends to stop down to f/8 anyway, why carry more weight on a long hike?

 

[mclaren777]

I just want Canon to make a new 14mm f/2.8 – is that really too much to ask?

 

[brad-man]

I could well see a landscape photographer who does NOT do astro-landscape choosing the 16-34 f/4 over the f/2.8 II or III. If one tends to stop down to f/8 anyway, why carry more weight on a long hike?

Exactly. And let's not forget the IS. On the few occasions that I need faster WA, I'll bring a prime. That new Sigma 20 is mighty tempting...

 

[Ozarker]

I could well see a landscape photographer who does NOT do astro-landscape choosing the 16-34 f/4 over the f/2.8 II or III. If one tends to stop down to f/8 anyway, why carry more weight on a long hike?

Very true. It is nice to have the extra stop when one needs it though. One can always stop down, but ya can't stop up.

The Canon f/4 beats the heck out of the f/2.8 from what I hear. I went with the Tamron only for that reason. If the new lens equals the f/4 I'll get one in a few years. I hope it does.

 

[Ozarker]

Just don't announce it April 1st. Any day but that.

That day is reserved for the 5DS and 5DSr replacement announcement.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'd be happy with 18-35mm f/2.8 if it was really good wide open, or even a narrower zoom range like 18-28mm if the lens is f/2.

 

[Memdroid]

Maybe it is an 16-50mm 2.8

 

[wockawocka]

I've never felt there is a need for a 2.8 super zoom since the advent of higher ISO capability. Love the F4 IS.

Which weighs only a little less than the 2.8 MKii btw.