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

[Canon Rumors]

We’re told that the announcement for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III has been moved closer to Photokina in September, and delivery along with it. That puts 3 lenses in the mix for announcement at Photokina, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II. We also expect to see the EOS 5D Mark IV announced.</p>
<p>Delays with lens launches happen a lot, as production is always challenging. For example, the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II was set for a Photokina announcement, but ended up being delayed a couple of months and was announced in November of that year. The EF 11-24mm f/4L was delayed by about 6 months, as marketing material was already out, but announcement was held back for production reasons.</p>
<p>If anything else changes, we’ll let you know.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Maximilian]

*sigh* delays, delays, delays...

I thought maybe some reviews of that new lens would make some rainy summer days shorter while waiting for the photokina announcements (esp. 5D4 and the new kit lens).

Now the big question is, how this delay will affect other products - or marketing strategies.

Hopefully not even more delays

 

[midluk]

Now the big question is, how this delay will affect other products - or marketing strategies.

Hopefully not even more delays

I'm sure, they will delay the 5D4 to photokina 2018 because the 24-105 is not ready for photokina 2016

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[Sabaki]

Canon Rumors or Canon Teasers? lol

Reeeeeeally waiting to see this be announced, it's my next lens I purchase.

I vote for the BR in zooms. I have no engineering background but I imagine the goo sandwiched between two pieces of glass can happen!

 

[RGF]

We can hope ;D, we can pray :, we can despair :-\

But the lens will be here when Canon is good and ready to release.

Hope it is as good optically as we all expect.

 

[[email protected]]

It terms of the question on the Blue Goo, I don't think it is likely that it is more expensive than another kind of element - in fact it could be a bit cheaper to pull off than a normal, glass element. There's really no reason not to employ it in a top-line lens, like the 15-35L III, unless it is unnecessary; or came about only after most of the design was finished for the lens.

One speculation: they may not market it going forward as they marketed it under the 35L II. Back then they had a mumbly jumbly press release that gave so few details about this new technology, that we didn't even know if it was a solid or a liquid; thus the Blue Goo nickname it attracted. I suspect they used the term "organic compound" because they were trying desperately not to use the word "plastic" among the L user crowd, lest they fall victim to the vapors.

I hope, now in this day of the Art lens, that we needn't be too snobbish about materials that aren't just metal and glass.

 

[fentiger]

would not surprise me if the blue spectrum element was a compound similar to fluorite with special coatings on it.
nothing wrong in using plastic either, it has a lower refractive index than glass, so long as its not used on the two elements at the front and rear

 

[j-nord]

Although this lens interests me greatly (only it if it has good coma control), the delay doesn't bother me since I probably won't be in the market for one until next season anyways.

 

[ahsanford]

Although this lens interests me greatly (only it if it has good coma control), the delay doesn't bother me since I probably won't be in the market for one until next season anyways.

I always forget the astro camp. Are the astro folks putting their hopes on this one, or are they just waiting for a blue goo version of the 35L II to arrive in a future 24 f/1.4L prime? The 35L II coma performance is good from what I've seen.

- A

 

[j-nord]

Although this lens interests me greatly (only it if it has good coma control), the delay doesn't bother me since I probably won't be in the market for one until next season anyways.

I always forget the astro camp. Are the astro folks putting their hopes on this one, or are they just waiting for a blue goo version of the 35L II to arrive in a future 24 f/1.4L prime? The 35L II coma performance is good from what I've seen.

- A

Ive been very close to picking up a rokinon 14mm f2.8 or rokinon 24mm f1.4 many times but I'd much rather wait and invest in a more versatile lens. A 16-35mm f2.8 with really good coma would be a perfect lens for me, Id take it even if it doesn't have IS. If the 16-35iii has poor coma then 24L ii would probably be my next choice.

 

[ahsanford]

Ive been very close to picking up a rokinon 14mm f2.8 or rokinon 24mm f1.4 many times but I'd much rather wait and invest in a more versatile lens. A 16-35mm f2.8 with really good coma would be a perfect lens for me, Id take it even if it doesn't have IS. If the 16-35iii has poor coma then 24L ii would probably be my next choice.

If you don't need convenient front-filtering, I hear the Tamron 15-30 is a good call for a zoom for astro. The coma's not terrible compared to similar offerings:

http://www.lenstip.com/432.7-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

- A

 

[j-nord]

Ive been very close to picking up a rokinon 14mm f2.8 or rokinon 24mm f1.4 many times but I'd much rather wait and invest in a more versatile lens. A 16-35mm f2.8 with really good coma would be a perfect lens for me, Id take it even if it doesn't have IS. If the 16-35iii has poor coma then 24L ii would probably be my next choice.

If you don't need convenient front-filtering, I hear the Tamron 15-30 is a good call for a zoom for astro. The coma's not terrible compared to similar offerings:

http://www.lenstip.com/432.7-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

- A

Ive heard it's good but as you mentioned, with out a 77 or 82mm filter, it's no longer a versatile lens.

 

[Larsskv]

Although this lens interests me greatly (only it if it has good coma control), the delay doesn't bother me since I probably won't be in the market for one until next season anyways.

I always forget the astro camp. Are the astro folks putting their hopes on this one, or are they just waiting for a blue goo version of the 35L II to arrive in a future 24 f/1.4L prime? The 35L II coma performance is good from what I've seen.

- A

Ive been very close to picking up a rokinon 14mm f2.8 or rokinon 24mm f1.4 many times but I'd much rather wait and invest in a more versatile lens. A 16-35mm f2.8 with really good coma would be a perfect lens for me, Id take it even if it doesn't have IS. If the 16-35iii has poor coma then 24L ii would probably be my next choice.

The 24LII has bad coma too, I´m afraid. I compared it to my 24-70 f/2.8LII, and the latter was noticeably better, even when both were compared at f/2.8.

 

[[email protected]]

+1 on the 15-30 Tamron for astro. Coma is actually really well controlled. The disadvantage is, of course, the f/stop versus the 24 1.4. But if you're comparing it to the 16-35 Canons, there's much to recommend.

 

[j-nord]

The 24LII has bad coma too, I´m afraid. I compared it to my 24-70 f/2.8LII, and the latter was noticeably better, even when both were compared at f/2.8.

Sorry, I was referring to a 24L iii (the next one which will potentially have good coma).

 

[unfocused]

Just bought the 16-35 f4 IS on the Canon refurbished sale, so I expect the last obstacle to releasing this lens has now been met.

Seriously, I doubt if this would be in my budget anyway and I'm really loving the quality of the 16-35 f4.

 

[ahsanford]

Just bought the 16-35 f4 IS on the Canon refurbished sale, so I expect the last obstacle to releasing this lens has now been met.

Seriously, I doubt if this would be in my budget anyway and I'm really loving the quality of the 16-35 f4.

I'd recommend you get the lens you need for your application:

16-35 f/4L IS = most landscapes (i.e. non-astro), video (IS), hiking (low weight), etc.
16-35 f/2.8L II or III = sports, events, concerts (in the pit) and astro if the coma improves.
11-24 f/4L = architecture, when you need to take a pano in one shot for some reason, etc.

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

 

[wsmith96]

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

 

[ahsanford]

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