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

[ahsanford]

True, but canon have gone on record to say that it's easier to fit IS units on telephoto lenses than normal or wide lenses. They have also said that the wider the angle...the less effective they are. A 16mm should be hand hold-able at around 1/15th sec....a 500mm will need 1/500th for the same sharpness / reciprocal rule. IS units aren't as good as the shutter speed approaches the 1 second mark. So putting an IS unit on a wide is widely seen as academic....sorry I couldn't help the pun!

You are correct that it's harder to pull off / theoretically less effective at wider FLs, but don't tell that to Canon -- from Bryan Carnathan's review of the 16-35 f/4L IS at TDP:

"Under ideal conditions (standing indoors on a solid floor) and shooting completely freehand, at 16mm, I obtained a decent sharp image percentage down to about .6 seconds for just over 3 stops of assistance."

3 stops IS for such a lens is a massive opportunity. It allows me to take what normally would be a very low light ISO 6400 shot (on a non-IS lens) at a far better quality ISO 800 shot with IS, or it lets me keep the ISO at 6400 and stop down for more working DOF.

Handheld / impromptu / walkabout nighttime cityscape shots, shooting inside of a church where tripods are not allowed, video stabilization --> the applications of it are great for stills and video folks.

- A

 

[RGF]

Excellent

+100

 

[Wick]

I've been waiting for this update. I am dumping my 16-35 II right now.

Just curious. What are the "glaring weaknesses" of the current lens? I have used it for several years now and found it to be a pretty good lens. But if there are some weaknesses likely to affect my particular applications I would be pleased to know about them.

 

[ahsanford]

I've been waiting for this update. I am dumping my 16-35 II right now.

Just curious. What are the "glaring weaknesses" of the current lens? I have used it for several years now and found it to be a pretty good lens. But if there are some weaknesses likely to affect my particular applications I would be pleased to know about them.

Unless all you care about is the frame center, the 16-35 f/4L IS mops the floor with it optically. Landscapers abandoned the 16-35 f/2.8L II en masse once it was clear how much better the 16-35 f/4L IS was.

Event/sports folks have always held on to theirs as f/2.8 is far more important than overall sharpness, but recent third party UWA f/2.8 zooms have shown that you can get more out of such lenses.

So, in my mind, the 16-35 f/2.8L II is actually a fine lens, but such a staple professional tool needs to be periodically updated to justify its high price. That's what's happening here.

- A

 

[wockawocka]

Yeah the F4 wipes the floor with it and to be fair to the F4, unless the 2.8 III has IS I won't be moving to it.

It's only a stop difference and it sort of makes such a wide lens redundant unless you're trying to stop time in low light.

I'd much rather they get the blue goo into new 50 and a rear focusing 85L.

 

[Maximilian]

I wonder if the MkIII will have the blue goo?

Same thought here!
Wonder how this element would work with a zoom...

 

[ahsanford]

Yeah the F4 wipes the floor with it and to be fair to the F4, unless the 2.8 III has IS I won't be moving to it.

It's only a stop difference and it sort of makes such a wide lens redundant unless you're trying to stop time in low light.

I'd much rather they get the blue goo into new 50 and a rear focusing 85L.

Depends on what you shoot with it.

I see landscapers completely ignoring this new lens unless it one-ups the 16-35 f/4L IS's sharpness dramatically, which would be quite a feat. Landscapers don't want the weight, so f/4 is perfect for them.

I see Sports/Events folks pre-ordering it on day one. It's a critical tool that would benefit from the same kind of resolution bump the 24-70 f/2.8L I --> II demonstrated.

I see astro folks -- like with all false dawns -- waiting for coma data before getting their hearts crushed again, like with the Sigma 20mm f/1.4.

Architecture folks will probably drive right past this in favor of the T/S lenses and the great 11-24 f/4L.

- A

 

[tron]

...
I see astro folks -- like with all false dawns -- waiting for coma data before getting their hearts crushed again, like with the Sigma 20mm f/1.4.

...
- A

Very true

 

[SlydeR]

I was on just about to buy the f/4 version...I guess I'll hold off a bit longer for the faster version.

 

[ahsanford]

...
I see astro folks -- like with all false dawns -- waiting for coma data before getting their hearts crushed again, like with the Sigma 20mm f/1.4.

...
- A

Very true

Canon has an easy option for astro folks, I think. Just put the BR gunk on a future 24mm f/1.4L III and be done with it. The 35L II coma performance looks pretty strong, so one might hope that improvement would translate to 24mm.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

Would be great to have it for Filters.

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

Mr. Sanford, there are filters available for the front of the Tamron. It also has IS (VC) and is considered to be a very, very good UWA with very low coma. Same as the Canon 11-24mm (filters). Dustin Abbott does a great review on the Tamron along with other reviewers.

However, I don't think the front element on this new Canon lens will be bulbous. Filters will screw right on the front. I do understand wanting to use our existing screw on filters ($$$).

 

[Random Orbits]

...
I see astro folks -- like with all false dawns -- waiting for coma data before getting their hearts crushed again, like with the Sigma 20mm f/1.4.

...
- A

Very true

Canon has an easy option for astro folks, I think. Just put the BR gunk on a future 24mm f/1.4L III and be done with it. The 35L II coma performance looks pretty strong, so one might hope that improvement would translate to 24mm.

- A

I'm thinking the same thing. Although if the 16-35 III has BR, then it'd be an indication that Canon will probably use it for all the high end UW lenses going forward. Would love to see the 24 III and 14 III get it. With Canon choosing to produce the 11-24 f/4 instead of competing with Nikon head on with a 14-24, it still leaves a niche for the 14mm prime.

Canon used be weak in the UWA focal length range, but that is quickly turning into a strength. And if it chooses to add a coma fix to all larger aperture Ls...

 

[ahsanford]

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

Mr. Sanford, there are filters available for the front of the Tamron. It also has IS (VC) and is considered to be a very, very good UWA. Same as the Canon 11-24mm (filters).

However, I don't think the front element on this new Canon lens will be bulbous. Filters will screw right on the front. I do understand wanting to use our existing screw on filters ($$$).

Well aware -- there is an outrigger for everything these days it seems.

I was referring to removing the front filter threads. The 16-35 f/2.8L III will simply have a front filter ring. It must.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Canon used be weak in the UWA focal length range, but that is quickly turning into a strength. And if it chooses to add a coma fix to all larger aperture Ls...

+1. With the 16-35 f/2.8L III, Canon will be done with UWA zooms for quite some time.

The only major holes I see in the entire EF zoom lineup after this lens would be a superzoom up to 500 or 600mm. That and perhaps a super cheap UWA zoom, like a plasticky non-L 17-40mm f/4.5-5.6 STM for $300, but perhaps no one in FF would slap that on a $2k+ body...

- A

 

[tron]

...
I see astro folks -- like with all false dawns -- waiting for coma data before getting their hearts crushed again, like with the Sigma 20mm f/1.4.

...
- A

Very true

Canon has an easy option for astro folks, I think. Just put the BR gunk on a future 24mm f/1.4L III and be done with it. The 35L II coma performance looks pretty strong, so one might hope that improvement would translate to 24mm.

- A

I'm thinking the same thing. Although if the 16-35 III has BR, then it'd be an indication that Canon will probably use it for all the high end UW lenses going forward. Would love to see the 24 III and 14 III get it. With Canon choosing to produce the 11-24 f/4 instead of competing with Nikon head on with a 14-24, it still leaves a niche for the 14mm prime.

Canon used be weak in the UWA focal length range, but that is quickly turning into a strength. And if it chooses to add a coma fix to all larger aperture Ls...

16-35 f/4L IS and 24-70 2.8 L II are fine with coma. So I believe the new 16-35 will be fine too. But I would welcome a coma free 24 1.4 III. As far as 14 2.8 is concerned I use version II which although not coma free it is not horrible. If I can have a 16-35 2.8 that is coma free I would consider it over a 14 III since missing 2mm less is not a disaster and I value more a hood and a flat front element with hood over a bulbous one (with embedded hood) to protect me from side lights.

 

[Krob78]

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...

If their complaining about the size and weight, it's only because they've not been shooting with the 11-24mm f/4 ;D

 

[tron]

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...

If their complaining about the size and weight, it's only because they've not been shooting with the 11-24mm f/4 ;D

;D ;D ;D

 

[mnclayshooter]

EEEP...

I was about 1 mouse click away from buying the f4 today at lunch when I saw this. Might be holding out a little bit. Some people will no-doubt unload their f4 to get the 2.8, I'd guess - even though they seem to be targeted to two slightly different crowds.

 

[ahsanford]

EEEP...

I was about 1 mouse click away from buying the f4 today at lunch when I saw this. Might be holding out a little bit. Some people will no-doubt unload their f4 to get the 2.8, I'd guess - even though they seem to be targeted to two slightly different crowds.

Slightly different? Unless you want to dabble in astro, I don't know how a delighted 16-35 f/4L IS user would make the jump:

1) "You know what would make this landscape even better? An aperture I'll never use, a ton more weight, and some new 82mm filters. That sounds awesome."

2) "My videos would get even better without IS. Take my money, Canon."

Both of those: said by no one ever.

The only way there will be an exodus from the 16-35 f/4L IS to the 16-35 f/2.8L III is if it blows minds optically. I just don't see that happening give how damn good the f/4L IS is today.

I personally only see the 'first!' / 'gotta have the latest-greatest' crowd (i.e. very well-heeled enthusiasts) as those that would jump from the f/4L IS to the f/2.8L III. Pros are much more disciplined and segmented into using the right lens for the job.

So I principally see the overhwhelmingly most-likely buyers of the 16-35 f/2.8L III as all the people who are shooting with the 16-35 f/2.8L II today. It's a straight upgrade for the sports/event crowd and that's that.

- A

 

[Etienne]

EEEP...

I was about 1 mouse click away from buying the f4 today at lunch when I saw this. Might be holding out a little bit. Some people will no-doubt unload their f4 to get the 2.8, I'd guess - even though they seem to be targeted to two slightly different crowds.

IS vs 1 stop is a tough call. I might go with the IS because of the handhold possibilities, and the stability in video.
Probably going to sell my 16-35 f/2.8L II , but the choice between the f/4 IS and f/2.8 mkIII is a tough one if both have equal IQ