Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Announcement Moved Closer to Photokina?

[Corydoras]

I would prefer non-IS F2.8. IS adds extra glass/mechanics which increases weight, potentially cost, and to some degree reduces IQ.

I am not concerned about the IS degrading the IQ of the lens. I don´t see many whining about bad sharpness with the 70-200 IS II. 8) I see the added weight and cost being the only downsides, but when we are talking about an L-series lens these "problems" are minor issues compared to kit lenses that cost and weight significantly less to begin with.

 

[RGF]

I would prefer non-IS F2.8. IS adds extra glass/mechanics which increases weight, potentially cost, and to some degree reduces IQ.

I am not concerned about the IS degrading the IQ of the lens. I don´t see many whining about bad sharpness with the 70-200 IS II. 8) I see the added weight and cost being the only downsides, but when we are talking about an L-series lens these "problems" are minor issues compared to kit lenses that cost and weight significantly less to begin with.

In the end, I seldom use IS on my 16-35 F4 though I occasionally use it with my 24-105.

I could live without it. If I had a choice of two 16-35 lenses, equal optical performance, one w/ and one w/o IS I would pick the IS lens even if slightly heavier.

Only concern is that the optical performance would be better w/o IS - though I agree w/ your point about the 70-200 F2.8. Wonder if they can repeat that in much shorter lens

 

[j-nord]

The mkiii has to have one of the following or I don't see many upgrades happening:

1) General IQ/sharpness improvement + good coma control
2) General IQ/sharpness improvement + IS
3) General IQ/sharpness improvement + 15mm
4) Big IQ/sharpness improvement + BR

Unfortunately, I think it's unlikely we will see more than one of these happening.

 

[ahsanford]

The mkiii has to have one of the following or I don't see many upgrades happening:

1) General IQ/sharpness improvement + good coma control
2) General IQ/sharpness improvement + IS
3) General IQ/sharpness improvement + 15mm
4) Big IQ/sharpness improvement + BR

Unfortunately, I think it's unlikely we will see more than one of these happening.

Going wider than 16mm likely (but not certainly) would eliminate the front filter threads. I don't see that happening as working pros who use this staple tool have come to expect front filterability. Yes, there are lenses wider than 16mm on FF that have front filter threads, but they are generally much much bigger than 82mm up front.

So I don't think Canon is foolish enough to significantly reduce the practicality of the lens for a small widening of the wide end. I think this will be a straight next version of the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

IS, BR, Coma = TBD. My guess is no, no, and maaaaaaaybe. This is not principally a lens aimed at astro, and Canon's coma track record on the UWA fast zoom front is not amazing.

- A

 

[StudentOfLight]

The mkiii has to have one of the following or I don't see many upgrades happening:

1) General IQ/sharpness improvement + good coma control
2) General IQ/sharpness improvement + IS
3) General IQ/sharpness improvement + 15mm
4) Big IQ/sharpness improvement + BR

Unfortunately, I think it's unlikely we will see more than one of these happening.

Going wider than 16mm likely (but not certainly) would eliminate the front filter threads. I don't see that happening as working pros who use this staple tool have come to expect front filterability. Yes, there are lenses wider than 16mm on FF that have front filter threads, but they are generally much much bigger than 82mm up front.

So I don't think Canon is foolish enough to significantly reduce the practicality of the lens for a small widening of the wide end. I think this will be a straight next version of the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

IS, BR, Coma = TBD. My guess is no, no, and maaaaaaaybe. This is not principally a lens aimed at astro, and Canon's coma track record on the UWA fast zoom front is not amazing.

- A

Engineers in Canon's lens department are like:

 

[ahsanford]

I could see BR happening, but my gut says they'll reserve it for the pricey fast primes for now.

I don't see IS happening -- Canon seems set to leave IS on f/4 standard/UWA zooms and not put it on the f/2.8 versions.

And coma isn't a feature so much as a performance metric. It should improve, but I'm pretty sure Canon is much more worried about the needs of the 1,000x as many photographers* tackling reportage / events / sports than those who are shooting astro.

*We have no data on this, of course. It just seems like the 16-35 is anywhere and everywhere a photographer needs to get close to a person, and common sense would imply that need must numerically dwarf the number of astro folks out there. But my common sense may be wrong...

That doesn't mean Canon doesn't care about coma, doesn't want to improve it, etc. but I can't believe it's a high priority for them.

- A

 

[tron]

The mkiii has to have one of the following or I don't see many upgrades happening:

1) General IQ/sharpness improvement + good coma control
2) General IQ/sharpness improvement + IS
3) General IQ/sharpness improvement + 15mm
4) Big IQ/sharpness improvement + BR

Unfortunately, I think it's unlikely we will see more than one of these happening.

Going wider than 16mm likely (but not certainly) would eliminate the front filter threads. I don't see that happening as working pros who use this staple tool have come to expect front filterability. Yes, there are lenses wider than 16mm on FF that have front filter threads, but they are generally much much bigger than 82mm up front.

So I don't think Canon is foolish enough to significantly reduce the practicality of the lens for a small widening of the wide end. I think this will be a straight next version of the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

IS, BR, Coma = TBD. My guess is no, no, and maaaaaaaybe. This is not principally a lens aimed at astro, and Canon's coma track record on the UWA fast zoom front is not amazing.

- A

... because ... the only 1. Canon 2. UWA 3. fast zoom is the 16-35 2.8 II. Quite a choice of words...

However the newer Canon zoom lenses (not necessarily both fast and UWA but fast = 24-70 2.8 II or UWA = 16-35 f/4 IS) have low coma.

 

[ahsanford]

... because ... the only 1. Canon 2. UWA 3. fast zoom is the 16-35 2.8 II. Quite a choice of words...

However the newer Canon zoom lenses (not necessarily both fast and UWA but fast = 24-70 2.8 II or UWA = 16-35 f/4 IS) have low coma.

How many people are shooting astro with f/4 lenses?

Yes, the Venn diagram for your 1/2/3 at Canon is only one lens: the 16-35 f/2.8L II. Let's expand that to any Canon lens wider than 35mm and f/2.8 or faster, which astro folks might have a look at.

See coma performance below. Other than the old 20mm f/2.8 -- which the review does not clearly state took place on a FF rig (might just be APS-C samples), let's call it what it is: Canon + Fast + Wide --> not terrific coma performance.

The 24-70L II, as you said, is one noted exception.

- A

 

[StudentOfLight]

... because ... the only 1. Canon 2. UWA 3. fast zoom is the 16-35 2.8 II. Quite a choice of words...

However the newer Canon zoom lenses (not necessarily both fast and UWA but fast = 24-70 2.8 II or UWA = 16-35 f/4 IS) have low coma.

How many people are shooting astro with f/4 lenses?

Yes, the Venn diagram for your 1/2/3 at Canon is only one lens: the 16-35 f/2.8L II. Let's expand that to any Canon lens wider than 35mm and f/2.8 or faster, which astro folks might have a look at.

See coma performance below. Other than the old 20mm f/2.8 -- which the review does not clearly state took place on a FF rig (might just be APS-C samples), let's call it what it is: Canon + Fast + Wide --> not terrific coma performance.

The 24-70L II, as you said, is one noted exception.

- A

I shoot astro at f/4:

 

[tron]

All these tests prove that we need a breakthrough in a Canon UWA fast lens as far as coma is concerned!
It does not have to be a zoom lens but if the new 16-35 2.8 III is almost coma free it will be a great lens for any kind of landscape (astro or not = two birds with one stone) . And the two lenses I mentioned mean that Canon just might be able to provide us with such a lens.

 

[ahsanford]

All these tests prove that we need a breakthrough in a Canon UWA fast lens as far as coma is concerned!
It does not have to be a zoom lens but if the new 16-35 2.8 III is almost coma free it will be a great lens for any kind of landscape (astro or not = two birds with one stone) . And the two lenses I mentioned mean that Canon just might be able to provide us with such a lens.

Here's hoping, of course! I don't mean to be a cynic.

I still think the gamechanger for the astro camp will be the next 24 f/1.4L with the BR gunk. The 35L II is terrific but a bit too long -- just put that magic into a 24 and you're there.

- A

 

[j-nord]

All these tests prove that we need a breakthrough in a Canon UWA fast lens as far as coma is concerned!
It does not have to be a zoom lens but if the new 16-35 2.8 III is almost coma free it will be a great lens for any kind of landscape (astro or not = two birds with one stone) . And the two lenses I mentioned mean that Canon just might be able to provide us with such a lens.

Here's hoping, of course! I don't mean to be a cynic.

I still think the gamechanger for the astro camp will be the next 24 f/1.4L with the BR gunk. The 35L II is terrific but a bit too long -- just put that magic into a 24 and you're there.

- A

Fingers cross but, Im very skeptical for the 16-35iii. Samyang/Rokinon are getting a lot of astro sales with their 14 2.8 and 24 1.4. Seems there is room for Canon to keep consumers using 1st party glass.

 

[tron]

All these tests prove that we need a breakthrough in a Canon UWA fast lens as far as coma is concerned!
It does not have to be a zoom lens but if the new 16-35 2.8 III is almost coma free it will be a great lens for any kind of landscape (astro or not = two birds with one stone) . And the two lenses I mentioned mean that Canon just might be able to provide us with such a lens.

Here's hoping, of course! I don't mean to be a cynic.

I still think the gamechanger for the astro camp will be the next 24 f/1.4L with the BR gunk. The 35L II is terrific but a bit too long -- just put that magic into a 24 and you're there.

- A

+1 That would be a very tempting lens. But if Sigma can mae a 20 1.4 (although not a good one comawise) I can dream for a Canon version and/or a 14mm f/2.0 (OK 10 years from now...) But there is a .... CR3 that 24mm 1.4L III will appear eventually ;D while the others not so much (even 10 years from now...)