Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Coming in June [CR3]

[davidj]

If it's going to be called the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III" then it won't have IS, but I'd be happier if it was the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IS" instead.

For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?

 

[privatebydesign]

For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?

Because that is what they do with the 24-70's!

 

[cenkog]

Most glaring weakness is still "IS" unfortunately...

We’re told that we can expect to see the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III to be announced in June of 2016, and availability coming fairly quickly, likely by the end of July.</p>
<p>A person who has used the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III says it’s every bit as good as the recent L offerings from Canon and “solves the most glaring weaknesses of the current version.”</p>
<p>We haven’t been told anything about pricing yet, but we hope to hear more about that in the coming weeks.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[davidj]

For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?

Because that is what they do with the 24-70's!

I'm hoping that situation changes too in the not too distance future...

 

[nightscape123]

If it has IS, low coma and isn't too massive I might sell my Tamron 15-30. I love the 15-30, it has been an awesome lens, but being able to use filters and having less weight to lug around might be worth it. I'll have to wait and see.

 

[romanr74]

If it's going to be called the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III" then it won't have IS, but I'd be happier if it was the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IS" instead.

For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?

Because othervise everybody will be complaining about size and weight...

 

[photojoern.de]

I own the 16-35mm f4 with IS and I am perfectly happy with the lens. Very good optics, sharp even in the edges. And with the IS I can go down to 1/10th of a second hand held and it´s still sharp on a 5 DS. See e.g. this one hand held shot: https://500px.com/photo/137970609/the-bridge-at-lake-tonle-sap-by-photo-j%C3%B6rn
The f2.8 doesn´t have an IS, so I believe it´s just for star photography where there is a real advantage. Not for street, not for landscape or cityscape, by day or by night.
I really hope for an f2.8 24-70 L with an IS - brilliant optics, good aperture and IS would really make a difference in High Quality street photography.

 

[Memdroid]

I own the 16-35mm f4 with IS and I am perfectly happy with the lens. Very good optics, sharp even in the edges. And with the IS I can go down to 1/10th of a second hand held and it´s still sharp on a 5 DS. See e.g. this one hand held shot: https://500px.com/photo/137970609/the-bridge-at-lake-tonle-sap-by-photo-j%C3%B6rn
The f2.8 doesn´t have an IS, so I believe it´s just for star photography where there is a real advantage. Not for street, not for landscape or cityscape, by day or by night.
I really hope for an f2.8 24-70 L with an IS - brilliant optics, good aperture and IS would really make a difference in High Quality street photography.

2.8 is good for stopping action at low light. It is a very useful.

 

[ahsanford]

Usually used my 16-35/2.8 II stopped down, sold it after the 16-35/4L IS came out, but opted for the TS-E 17/4L instead. If anything, will get the 11-24/4L as a UWA over a 16-35/2.8 III.

I wonder if the MkIII will have the blue goo?

+1 on wondering about the BR gunk. One would think that if this lens doesn't get it, Canon may only offer it in the f/1.4 and f/1.2 primes at first.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

If it's going to be called the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III" then it won't have IS, but I'd be happier if it was the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IS" instead.


For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?

Because othervise everybody will be complaining about size and weight...

Size and weight is a spurious argument, the difference between the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8IS is 5oz, 1mm wide and 3mm long, and manufacturing processes and materials have improved immensely in that time.

 

[ahsanford]

Would be great to have it for Filters.

That's a hammerlock certainty, IMHO. Event folks need NDs for really bright outdoor shots, and sports folks need UV for no other reason than to seal the front element, right? And the very few folks who will buy this lens for landscape work (presuming they don't need f/2.8 ) would use a CPL for water reflections and such.

So I'll eat my hat if Canon pulls a knuckleheaded Tamron 15-30 move and makes the front element too bulbous for filtering.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

But . . . . will it have IS?????

I don't think so.
You'll have to make a choice between IS (at f/4) or f/2.8 (w/o IS).

The 'III' designation = no IS. If it had IS, it would simply be 16-35 f/2.8L IS.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I was pondering this the other day. Canon used to get a bad rap for their wide lenses. But these days, they have the most interesting, innovative, creative and capable wide lenses in their lens portfolio...more so than any other brand. The fish eye zoom 8-15L....unique and the last fisheye I'll ever need. The TS-e 17L...again unique and a fantastic optic. The new 11-24mm L is the widest rectilinear zoom lens ever made and again it's an amazing optic. The 16-35 LIS f4 has won a lot of hearts for it's impressive optical capability...so an f2.8 version should be very welcome too.

+1. The tilt-shift world has always been good, but their ultra-wide zooms have been iffy for landscape needs until the 16-35 f/4L IS came out. Then came the 11-24 f/4L. So most landscapers have just about everything they need except for a fast + wide + coma free lens for astro.

Not sure this new lens will be it. Undoubtedly this lens will be focused on events / sports needs instead, but it's possible Canon shoots for the moon coma-wise.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?

For whatever reason, with ultrawide zooms and standard zooms, Canon has a "f/2.8 doesn't get IS & f/4 does get IS" approach. They've been consistent on this with the 24-somethings, and now it appears that they have done the same for the 16-35s.

The ultra-ultra-wides (11-24, 8-15, etc.) are an exception -- they get nothing.

I'd love IS on everything, personally.

- A

 

[TommyLee]

wrap it up..... I est $1700..............
they usually announce JUST befor my birthday....
..they know me...

if they make it I.S. ...... $2200...
and they will have trouble keeping in stock...

either way... I stalled with the 16-35 f4L I.S. looked great... but wanted fast with I.S. ....
and have a tamron 15-30 good optically all around...sharp

... but if this Canon 16-35 has I.S. (doubtful) I will sell the Tamron...

if coma is low it will be quite popular...

the Tamron f2.8 coma is low....
so it is the one to beat

the 100-400 II... and 35L are a marvel of performance....
love em

////
a 24-105 II would be wonderful....
just sayin

 

[ahsanford]

I really hope for an f2.8 24-70 L with an IS - brilliant optics, good aperture and IS would really make a difference in High Quality street photography.

I agree there is a market for a 24-70 f/2.8L IS lens, but for street shooting? That's more like paparazzi shooting! I have no idea how you discreetly take photos of people with a big pickle jar sort of lens.

To each their own, but I'd rather have the 35 f/2 IS USM for such a task. Small, relatively discreet, useful street focal length, f/2 and IS.

- A

 

[romanr74]

If it's going to be called the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III" then it won't have IS, but I'd be happier if it was the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IS" instead.


For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?

Because othervise everybody will be complaining about size and weight...

Size and weight is a spurious argument, the difference between the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8IS is 5oz, 1mm wide and 3mm long, and manufacturing processes and materials have improved immensely in that time.

I doubt you can seriously take a 70-200 f/2.8 design IS vs. non-IS as a reference for a 24-70 design...

 

[JohanCruyff]

Have the mandatory "Canon is doomed" and "Canon is lagging behind" sentences been written?

 

[jeffa4444]

Im with photojoern.de the Canon EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM lens is really an outstanding lens and if Canon can meet the optical quality of that lens in a 2.8 version it will do super well with low light shooters. On my Canon 5DS the f4L version is an awsome combination for landscape. Canon has hit some great home runs recently the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS SUSM II lens, the EF 35mm f1.4L II (blue spectrum refractive optics) show what they can do when they set their mind to it.

I hope they then focus on the EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM because thats not a shinning example of what Canon can do and the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is equally overdue a overhall.

 

[romanr74]

Have the mandatory "Canon is doomed" and "Canon is lagging behind" sentences been written?

not yet...