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

[j-nord]

I principally shoot landscapes when I shoot UWA, so the 16-35 f/4L IS is absolutely perfect for my needs. YMMV depending on what you want, but I'm not convinced 'one UWA zoom to rule them all' exists or is ever coming.

- A

I agree with you. If canon made a jack of all trades lens it wouldn't excel at any of the tasks. Better to make the right tool for the job even if that means 3 different zoom UWA lenses. It also boosts sales if the buyer has more than one specialty

Some do believe the f/2.8 version should always outshine the f/4 version, and they argue that for $1700 (or so), the f/2.8 should mop the floor with an $1,199 f/4 lens. I am not one of those people.

I believe the 16-35 f/2.8L III could possibly outperform the 16-35 f/4L IS for landscape work, but (a) it will not do so dramatically as most landscapes are shot stopped down, and (b) the f/2.8 will be a heavy weight you always must carry. So, for me, I would be stunned if I ended up selling my f/4 IS for the new f/2.8.

- A

I'll take similar landscape performance to the f4 + 2.9 or better t-stop (mkii is 2.9) + coma control. It doesn't need to be head and shoulders sharper than the f4. I think most people who stuck with the mkii over the f4, have no choice, they require f2.8 so any improvement is welcome.

 

[douglaurent]

These are 3 mostly disappointing new releases, even if the quality is great - a 16-35/2.8 would have deserved IS, the 24-70/2.8 also would have needed an IS update first, and a 70-200 and 100-400 are always a better choice than a slow 70-300.

Canon doesn't even have sharp wide open 50mm and 85mm primes, these would be the first urgent lenses needed - unless Canon has given up that market to third parties already. Fast primes with IS are such a logical thing - when do they want to release them, 2021?

Lenses like the 11-24, 35/1.4 II, 100-400 II and 200-400 all have been great, but there are really way to many empty spaces in the Canon lens lineup. They should realize it's 2016 and not the last millennium anymore, when innovations were demanded at a much slower pace and only Nikon was a rival.

 

[Sabaki]

These are 3 mostly disappointing new releases, even if the quality is great - a 16-35/2.8 would have deserved IS, the 24-70/2.8 also would have needed an IS update first, and a 70-200 and 100-400 are always a better choice than a slow 70-300.

Canon doesn't even have sharp wide open 50mm and 85mm primes, these would be the first urgent lenses needed - unless Canon has given up that market to third parties already. Fast primes with IS are such a logical thing - when do they want to release them, 2021?

Lenses like the 11-24, 35/1.4 II, 100-400 II and 200-400 all have been great, but there are really way to many empty spaces in the Canon lens lineup. They should realize it's 2016 and not the last millennium anymore, when innovations were demanded at a much slower pace and only Nikon was a rival.

So let's get critical for a moment and pose a few questions.

1. Focal length - is another iteration of the 16-35 met the consumer's want? Would 15 or 14mm have made this lens more attractive?
2. IS - this lens is f/2.8 for applications outside of landscapes so I would assume those shooting at f/2.8 would have loved image stabilization.
3. Has Canon provided an emphatic reply to the legendary Nikon 14-24?

Hmmmmm...

 

[privatebydesign]

So let's get critical for a moment and pose a few questions.

1. Focal length - is another iteration of the 16-35 met the consumer's want? Would 15 or 14mm have made this lens more attractive?
2. IS - this lens is f/2.8 for applications outside of landscapes so I would assume those shooting at f/2.8 would have loved image stabilization.
3. Has Canon provided an emphatic reply to the legendary Nikon 14-24?

Hmmmmm...

1.Yes, Nikon still offer a 16-35 f2.8 too, many core users prefer a smaller, lighter, sharper, less distortion and CA, cheaper and more practical ( flat front element with normal filter threads) over a mm or two wider coverage.
2. Nope, Canon see the core customer for these lenses as being PJ's and sports shooters who generally need faster shutter speeds to stop subject motion much more than IS to stop camera shake. Yes that is a broad generalization, but if that is your core market cater to them.
3. Yes. The 11-24 pisses over the Nikon 14-24 in every metric, have you ever shot the 14-24 at 2.8? It has bad distortion CA and resolution. Canon users wanted one for so long because they didn't have one, but even when you stop the Nikon down the distortion is still too great to correct in post without real impact.

Take a look here:- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

And here:- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[ahsanford]

So let's get critical for a moment and pose a few questions.

1. Focal length - is another iteration of the 16-35 met the consumer's want? Would 15 or 14mm have made this lens more attractive?
2. IS - this lens is f/2.8 for applications outside of landscapes so I would assume those shooting at f/2.8 would have loved image stabilization.
3. Has Canon provided an emphatic reply to the legendary Nikon 14-24?

Hmmmmm...

1) Yes. A 16-35 f/2.8 is a staple professional tool, and it needs to be periodically updated. Dropping it under 16mm would highly likely eliminate the front filter threads and require an outrigger setup for filtering. Whatever percentage of astro folks who would find a 14-something f/2.8 UWA zoom attractive simply have to be less than every other field of photography that would appreciate the ability to conveniently filter.

2) In general I'm pro IS for any lens, but Canon has seemingly refused to give 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses IS while the f/4 variants do get it. We'll see if they change that this time.

3) Because I'm not sure Canon needs to. Once the 16-35 f/2.8L III is out, Canon will have everything covered compared to Nikon (including 11-13mm rectilinear shooting) except for 14-15mm shooting at f/2.8, which is principally only of interest to the astro (and perhaps sports) crowd. There's a misconception that the Nikkor's 'porridge is just right' for UWA applications, but it's far too heavy for a (non-astro) landscaper who won't ever use it at f/2.8, it doesn't take front filters easily/conveniently, and it has a small zoom range. I think it's a heck of an optical instrument, don't get me wrong, but I'll take Canon's UWA lineup (on aggregate) any day, as more lenses = more likely a 'porridge that is just right for me'. In my case, the 16-35 f/4L IS is absolutely perfect for my landscape needs.

- A

 

[Maximilian]

This will be the first f/2.8L zoom to come out since the BR gunk was released. Think we'll see it on the 16-35 f/2.8L III, or do you think Canon is saving it just for the fast L primes?

My vote is the latter, but I was curious what the forum thinks.

- A

Hi ahsanford!

My personal guess (!) is, that BR can only bend and optimize the blue light within a lens for one certain focal length.
So this would mean in a zoom it could not work well enough over the zoom range to justify usage and price there.
Conclusion: BR = prime stuff, because of optical physics, not because of marketing.

But I said it's just a guess, because I don't know how BR would work with different FL at the same time.
If it works well in a zoom, we'll see it in a EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III at a MRSP way north 3.000 $/€.

 

[Sabaki]

1.Yes, Nikon still offer a 16-35 f2.8 too, many core users prefer a smaller, lighter, sharper, less distortion and CA, cheaper and more practical ( flat front element with normal filter threads) over a mm or two wider coverage.
2. Nope, Canon see the core customer for these lenses as being PJ's and sports shooters who generally need faster shutter speeds to stop subject motion much more than IS to stop camera shake. Yes that is a broad generalization, but if that is your core market cater to them.
3. Yes. The 11-24 pisses over the Nikon 14-24 in every metric, have you ever shot the 14-24 at 2.8? It has bad distortion CA and resolution. Canon users wanted one for so long because they didn't have one, but even when you stop the Nikon down the distortion is still too great to correct in post without real impact.

Take a look here:- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

And here:- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

This is very interesting to me and perhaps an example of how we can falsely express the greeness of the grass over yonder.

I have for years and years believed the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 to be the perfect landscape tool, as it was often touted as that. From Canonites unhappy with the 16-35 f/2.8mkii to any Canon basher out there, the yardstick was always the Nikon. Now that Canon have released updated UWAs, turns out the venerable 14-24 is far from the perfect tool.

 

[rrcphoto]

well it's nearly July .. Photokina announcements start in late August. So i guess we are already closer to Photokina.

it's been a strangely quiet year for Canon on the optics front, actually the last two years have been quiet really.. only issuing out 6 new lenses in the last 1.5 years. unless there's a slew of lenses, it will make the last two years the slowest for a while for canon lens releases back to the 2008-7 timeframe.

2016 2
2015 4
2014 7
2013 4
2012 9
2011 4
2010 7
2009 5
2008 4
2007 4
2006 3

it's also curious to note that canon seems to have a "big year" releasing new lenses, then a more "quiet year". since from around 2010 onwards.

there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.

 

[ahsanford]

there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.

I have no experience on lens manufacturing, but I would be stunned if this were the case. One year build increments imply Canon has flawless sales forecasting that perfectly pegs demand. It's far too risky to do this as you could have a major shortage and have to wait a year for more product.

I do believe that turning over a line to another product is quite an undertaking, but I have to believe both (a) they can turn a line over faster than we think and (b) they have multiple lines to allocate capacity to better respond to demand.

But if someone has information to the contrary, please forward. I'd like to read up on that!

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.

I have no experience on lens manufacturing, but I would be stunned if this were the case. One year build increments imply Canon has flawless sales forecasting that perfectly pegs demand. It's far too risky to do this as you could have a major shortage and have to wait a year for more product.

I do believe that turning over a line to another product is quite an undertaking, but I have to believe both (a) they can turn a line over faster than we think and (b) they have multiple lines to allocate capacity to better respond to demand.

But if someone has information to the contrary, please forward. I'd like to read up on that!

- A

Yes, they certainly make the bigger lenses in batches and then turn over the production staff to another model after the allotted number is made. I think this was explained by Canon themselves in an interesting set of videos on how the 500 f4 IS was made.

 

[ahsanford]

there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.

I have no experience on lens manufacturing, but I would be stunned if this were the case. One year build increments imply Canon has flawless sales forecasting that perfectly pegs demand. It's far too risky to do this as you could have a major shortage and have to wait a year for more product.

I do believe that turning over a line to another product is quite an undertaking, but I have to believe both (a) they can turn a line over faster than we think and (b) they have multiple lines to allocate capacity to better respond to demand.

But if someone has information to the contrary, please forward. I'd like to read up on that!

- A

Yes, they certainly make the bigger lenses in batches and then turn over the production staff to another model after the allotted number is made. I think this was explained by Canon themselves in an interesting set of videos on how the 500 f4 IS was made.

Oh, sure. With $10K+ lenses, I could understand that. They don't exactly fly off the shelves, and Canon would see a shortage coming months (if not quarters) in advance. On those, I could see an annual build.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.

I have no experience on lens manufacturing, but I would be stunned if this were the case. One year build increments imply Canon has flawless sales forecasting that perfectly pegs demand. It's far too risky to do this as you could have a major shortage and have to wait a year for more product.

I do believe that turning over a line to another product is quite an undertaking, but I have to believe both (a) they can turn a line over faster than we think and (b) they have multiple lines to allocate capacity to better respond to demand.

But if someone has information to the contrary, please forward. I'd like to read up on that!

- A

Yes, they certainly make the bigger lenses in batches and then turn over the production staff to another model after the allotted number is made. I think this was explained by Canon themselves in an interesting set of videos on how the 500 f4 IS was made.

Oh, sure. With $10K+ lenses, I could understand that. They don't exactly fly off the shelves, and Canon would see a shortage coming months (if not quarters) in advance. On those, I could see an annual build.

- A

I think most people would be surprised at the comparatively modest number of higher end lenses Canon actually make. What would be the global market for a 16-35 f2.8 MkIII, 10,000? 100,000? Over a life span of around 8 years that isn't going to pay for a lot of factory time and space let alone R&D, wages, shipping, profits.......

As for the bigger and more esoteric lenses I suspect 'annual' is far too frequent for batches. I know the 50 f1.0 and 200 f1.8 were still available new years after they stopped manufacturing them. Lenses that rely on big specialized glass have to wait for the crystals to grow too and if you lose a batch of those because of manufacturing issues (like the natural disasters) then I'd think timescales could widen considerably.

 

[j-nord]

Is it confirmed that there won't be IS? Or has IS simply gone unmentioned so far?

 

[ahsanford]

Is it confirmed that there won't be IS? Or has IS simply gone unmentioned so far?

There's no CR3 on IS to my knowledge.

People tend to lump the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses into the same 'workhorse handheld zoom' bucket, and it appears that in that bucket, Canon would tend to go [f/2.8 non-IS] or [f/4 IS] for such lenses. My money is on non-IS for that reason, but Canon may shake things up and offer it for the video crowd.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.

I have no experience on lens manufacturing, but I would be stunned if this were the case. One year build increments imply Canon has flawless sales forecasting that perfectly pegs demand. It's far too risky to do this as you could have a major shortage and have to wait a year for more product.

I do believe that turning over a line to another product is quite an undertaking, but I have to believe both (a) they can turn a line over faster than we think and (b) they have multiple lines to allocate capacity to better respond to demand.

But if someone has information to the contrary, please forward. I'd like to read up on that!

- A

Yes, they certainly make the bigger lenses in batches and then turn over the production staff to another model after the allotted number is made. I think this was explained by Canon themselves in an interesting set of videos on how the 500 f4 IS was made.

Could fewer releases mean that the lens lineup is getting so good quality wise that development time to "top" a previous release is getting longer?

 

[rrcphoto]

there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.

I have no experience on lens manufacturing, but I would be stunned if this were the case. One year build increments imply Canon has flawless sales forecasting that perfectly pegs demand.

why would you be stunned by that?

you don't think that canon has a damned good idea how many lenses of a particular type they will sell in it's lifetime?

they probably overproduce on the first batch and then adjust projections accordingly.

if you stop and think about it, it's the only way really it can be done .. there's 60++ lenses in canon's lineup.

I also wouldn't be surprised if camera bodies are generally done the same way as well.

 

[ahsanford]

I have no experience on lens manufacturing, but I would be stunned if this were the case. One year build increments imply Canon has flawless sales forecasting that perfectly pegs demand.

why would you be stunned by that?

you don't think that canon has a damned good idea how many lenses of a particular type they will sell in it's lifetime?

they probably overproduce on the first batch and then adjust projections accordingly.

if you stop and think about it, it's the only way really it can be done .. there's 60++ lenses in canon's lineup.

...and they probably have more than one line going at once to cover those 60 lenses. Canon's not run like a single-artisan jewelry outfit that's building product for Etsy.

I'm not saying that Canon doesn't build in big batches, I'm just saying an annualized build says that Canon has razor sharp sales forecasting that never leaves them holding the bag on thousands of units in excess or oversold to backorder situations. Canon knows its business well, but they don't control competitive releases, changes in the photography market, or the value of global currency (which certainly affects sales).

So Canon knows it's customers well, but one would think there are just too many unknowns for them to gamble with their supply chain like this. But others here have stated that Canon does indeed go annually for some lenses, so what do I know?

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

Is it confirmed that there won't be IS? Or has IS simply gone unmentioned so far?

There's no CR3 on IS to my knowledge.

People tend to lump the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses into the same 'workhorse handheld zoom' bucket, and it appears that in that bucket, Canon would tend to go [f/2.8 non-IS] or [f/4 IS] for such lenses. My money is on non-IS for that reason, but Canon may shake things up and offer it for the video crowd.

- A

So who is the bookie that takes all these bets you make?

 

[ahsanford]

Is it confirmed that there won't be IS? Or has IS simply gone unmentioned so far?

There's no CR3 on IS to my knowledge.

People tend to lump the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses into the same 'workhorse handheld zoom' bucket, and it appears that in that bucket, Canon would tend to go [f/2.8 non-IS] or [f/4 IS] for such lenses. My money is on non-IS for that reason, but Canon may shake things up and offer it for the video crowd.

- A

So who is the bookie that takes all these bets you make?

If there was a bookie for this, I'd fear for my financial future.

It's also being called the 16-35 f/2.8L III according to CR, not the 16-35 f/2.8L IS.

More circumstantial evidence to the 'non IS' camp, I guess.

- A

 

[RGF]

Is it confirmed that there won't be IS? Or has IS simply gone unmentioned so far?

There's no CR3 on IS to my knowledge.

People tend to lump the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses into the same 'workhorse handheld zoom' bucket, and it appears that in that bucket, Canon would tend to go [f/2.8 non-IS] or [f/4 IS] for such lenses. My money is on non-IS for that reason, but Canon may shake things up and offer it for the video crowd.

- A

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