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

[whothafunk]

the logic to not add, or rather, inability for Canon to add IS to their last few lenses is incredibly stupid for me and the sole reason I'm not buying 24-70 f2.8 II, 35mm 1.4 II, nor even 16-35 f2.8 II (yes, i still think it's OK of a lens) and the rumored 16-35 f2.8 III, because if you brag about your advanced video capable DSLRs, then how in the world is this logical. who the hell shoots video without IS.

sony's latest invention is a sort of gimbal-like stabilisation technology around sensor, which allows you to pop up a 20 year old lens and it has an IS.

im pissed.

 

[Etienne]

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.

I could go for that if it's not too big and heavy. Or 22-35 f/2L IS

 

[Sabaki]

Question to the events photographers out there.

How differently would a f/2.8 IS perform against a f/2.8 non IS lens in a lowlight venue?

 

[privatebydesign]

Question to the events photographers out there.

How differently would a f/2.8 IS perform against a f/2.8 non IS lens in a lowlight venue?

I'd take it in a snap, I drag the shutter a lot and IS helps a ton with that, the flash freezes the subject and the IS keeps the ambient from getting too blurred. Bring that on!

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Yes, you can double the ISO so an f/4 lens could do the job of an f/2.8... provided you aren't doing environmental portraiture (where you might want subject separation) or astro. But yes, that can work in many other instances.

But veteran sports/event folks will still put their fingers in their ears about modern high ISO performance and still demand an f/2.8 lens, which Canon will gladly give them and take their money.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Question to the events photographers out there.

How differently would a f/2.8 IS perform against a f/2.8 non IS lens in a lowlight venue?

It all depends on what you are shooting.

If your subject is not moving, IS is potentially a massive help. On the 16-35 f/4L IS, reviewers have found about the IS good for about 3 stops. So in a dark room without a flash (say, at a concert), where you'd need (say) ISO 6400 to net a shot at the minimum possible handholdable shutter speed with a non-IS lens, you could net the same shot with an IS version of that same lens at ISO 800. Now multiply both those numbers 6400 vs. 800 by 2, or by 4 (simulating even darker venues) and you can see the gold in IS for stationary subjects -- in some instances it is vital to keeping the ISO under a level you can accept.

If your subject is moving, IS in a wide lens doesn't really do you any favors. You generally need a faster minimum shutter speed and IS' upside is lost.

So, for me, when I'm shooting rock concerts (admittedly, I've only done that a few times), IS is only useful for when the frontman pauses for effect and does not move -- that's not that often. I'd rather just have the faster f/1.4 prime than an f/2.8 IS zoom in that case.

Keep in mind that I'm an available light shooter. Folks shooting weddings with speedlites likely have a very different perspective.

- A

 

[Etienne]

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.

Yes, you can double the ISO so an f/4 lens could do the job of an f/2.8... provided you aren't doing environmental portraiture (where you might want subject separation) or astro. But yes, that can work in many other instances.

But veteran sports/event folks will still put their fingers in their ears about modern high ISO performance and still demand an f/2.8 lens, which Canon will gladly give them and take their money.

- A

f/2.8 on a wide angle doesn't give much subject separation. Even f/2.0 is only a moderate subject isolation.
In wide and ultra-wide you need f/1.4 to have a good chance at blurring the background.

The biggest use I have for IS in a wide angle is video. Even at 16mm handheld video can appear slightly jittery, especially when a subject is fairly close to the camera. IS at wide angles gives an almost tripod level of stability look in the video

 

[jrista]

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?

Even with astro, you usually don't image wide open anyway. The chromatic aberration in these lenses is horrid, resulting in large magenta or blue halos around stars. I've always stopped my 16-35mm f/2.8 L II down to f/4 at least when doing astro, and even then, the stars in the corners are usually pretty terrible. I switched to the Samyang lenses because of that, like the 14mm, which give me significantly better corner stars even wide open.

 

[StoneColdCoffee]

I'm really hoping that this is f/2.8 and non-IS. With the 11-24mm north of $2600, I'm hoping for $1650 but probably will be a range of $1800-2200.
Like Jrista, I found a lot of coma at f/2.8 on my 16-35II. I also had the rokinon 14mm. But I found those to be inconsistent. one side of the lens would be in focus and he other slightly out of focus. it was annoying. so both of those are gone. now I use the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 . it is much sharper and controls coma better than either one of those. The downside is that it is HUGE and much heavier. but i'm still very happy with it. The alternative was a mount and Nikon 14-24. just did not want to go there. really looking forward to this lens. The more stars and detail I can get at f/2.8 in the shortest amount of time , the better

 

[jrista]

I'm really hoping that this is f/2.8 and non-IS. With the 11-24mm north of $2600, I'm hoping for $1650 but probably will be a range of $1800-2200.
Like Jrista, I found a lot of coma at f/2.8 on my 16-35II. I also had the rokinon 14mm. But I found those to be inconsistent. one side of the lens would be in focus and he other slightly out of focus. it was annoying. so both of those are gone. now I use the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 . it is much sharper and controls coma better than either one of those. The downside is that it is HUGE and much heavier. but i'm still very happy with it. The alternative was a mount and Nikon 14-24. just did not want to go there. really looking forward to this lens. The more stars and detail I can get at f/2.8 in the shortest amount of time , the better

The difference in focus from one side to the other actually has to do with looseness in the mounting between camera and lens. I have had to put a couple layers of tape on my 5D III mount, which I trimmed to size, to get a tighter fit and avoid the tilt issue. That issue was actually a LOT worse on my 16-35mm f/2.8 L II than on my Samyang 14mm, although it did still exist on the Samyang.

The other issue I have found with the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower lenses is they often don't have quite enough infinity to handle deep cold. I was trying to image the Geminids a week ago, and the temperature dropped so cold that I had to push my 14mm as far into infinity as it would go, and I was still just slightly out of focus. I don't know if I've used the EF 16-28mm in temps that cold (I think it was around -13 to -15 Celsius), so I am honestly not sure if it would have even had enough infinity focus room either. Despite this issue, the Samyang still produced better corner stars than my EF 16-28mm ever has. In warmer temps, that lens gives me near-perfect stars corner to corner across the entire field.

 

[kaihp]

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?

Even with astro, you usually don't image wide open anyway. The chromatic aberration in these lenses is horrid, resulting in large magenta or blue halos around stars.

jrista, are you only talking about the 16-35 f/2.8L's or is the new f/4L really bad on the chromatic aberration?

 

[jrista]

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?

Even with astro, you usually don't image wide open anyway. The chromatic aberration in these lenses is horrid, resulting in large magenta or blue halos around stars.

jrista, are you only talking about the 16-35 f/2.8L's or is the new f/4L really bad on the chromatic aberration?

Only the f/2.8's, I have not used the new f/4 L.

 

[kaihp]

Only the f/2.8's, I have not used the new f/4 L.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[enice128]

I'm really hoping that this is f/2.8 and non-IS. With the 11-24mm north of $2600, I'm hoping for $1650 but probably will be a range of $1800-2200.
Like Jrista, I found a lot of coma at f/2.8 on my 16-35II. I also had the rokinon 14mm. But I found those to be inconsistent. one side of the lens would be in focus and he other slightly out of focus. it was annoying. so both of those are gone. now I use the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 . it is much sharper and controls coma better than either one of those. The downside is that it is HUGE and much heavier. but i'm still very happy with it. The alternative was a mount and Nikon 14-24. just did not want to go there. really looking forward to this lens. The more stars and detail I can get at f/2.8 in the shortest amount of time , the better

Funny u mention this! I have an issue w my 16-35 2.8 out of focus slightly on the right side i believe & not as sharp as the left outer edge! Any idea why? And i see it more often on my current 1DX than w my last body, the 1D4! I thought i was crazy but is this an issue my current body or 16-35...& can it be corrected??

 

[wsmith96]

Funny u mention this! I have an issue w my 16-35 2.8 out of focus slightly on the right side i believe & not as sharp as the left outer edge! Any idea why? And i see it more often on my current 1DX than w my last body, the 1D4! I thought i was crazy but is this an issue my current body or 16-35...& can it be corrected??

You may need to send the lens in to canon with a couple of pics illustrating what you are seeing. Your 1D4 has a cropped sensor, so you may not have seen the issue with the edges to begin with.

 

[enice128]

Thanks for ur help! And ur correct, i never have noticed this before & it makes absolute sense since my old 1D4 was a 1.3 crop. Now finally stepping up to full frame which i am in love with i have notices this! I wasn't sure if it were the body or the lens but the lens does make more sense....hopefully less expensive to fix also....HOPEFULLY! Thanks again!

 

[Sabaki]

Let's hope this announcement happens this week too.

I've got money saved but before I pull the trigger, I'd like to see what develops with this lens

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The newer 16-35 f4 LIS is a nice prospect, but I really need the faster f2.8 aperture instead of loosing a stop and relying on an IS unit to assist.
My 16-35IIL is one of my most used lenses. In fact my copy is on it's 2nd front element.
It's a very versatile lens and in it's day it was the best there was. But I'm really looking forwards to reduced CA and improved sharpness across the focal / aperture range. I hope Canon keeps the number of aperture blades the same...I love the sunstars from this lens more than any other I've seen / used.

 

[Rahul]

I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 Mark II last week and got the 11-24L. I doubt if I'll be interested in getting the Mark-III if it does come into existence.

 

[H. Jones]

I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 Mark II last week and got the 11-24L. I doubt if I'll be interested in getting the Mark-III if it does come into existence.

Among the swarms of PJs slinging 16-35mms, I can't help but feel like I should invest in an 11-24mm and create pictures that have never been taken and that other PJs won't be able to replicate. It's really digging at me with all the opportunities, though I do love my 16-35mm's range.

I think Canon should avoid pricing the new 16-35mm too high, since I feel like there's a real chance that other PJs feel the same about their wide angles.