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

[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.

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

It's not a straight trade of IS vs. one stop faster. There's also that little bit about the f/2.8 probably coming in around $1600-1800 vs. the $999 for the f/4L IS.

I don't think it's a tough call at all. You need f/2.8 or you don't. Spend accordingly.

- A

 

[Etienne]

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.

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!

The EF-M 11-22 has IS .... and it is awesome

 

[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.

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

I think I'm generally in agreement... maybe it was inferred otherwise? In any case... my point was that there likely will be a few (note... a FEW for those who do get the GAS and the need for newest/best or think they need the 2.8) more used f4's showing up in the coming months. I'm making an upgrade from a terribly outdated tamron 17-35 2.8... good but not great... I've waited a long time, I can wait a month or two more.

 

[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

It's not a straight trade of IS vs. one stop faster. There's also that little bit about the f/2.8 probably coming in around $1600-1800 vs. the $999 for the f/4L IS.

I don't think it's a tough call at all. You need f/2.8 or you don't. Spend accordingly.

- A

If camera equipment were sold on "need" alone, Canon would go broke.
"I want" makes Canon rich

 

[Basil]

What pray tell is the most glaring weakness that this new lens solves?

 

[M_S]

June would be great, July is too late for my trip though. Guess I can only hope they speed things up.

 

[ahsanford]

What pray tell is the most glaring weakness that this new lens solves?

There are well built UWA zoom lenses a fraction of the cost that are sharper -- that's the glaring weakness. It needs to be updated for sharpness.

If this is Canon's premiere sports/event lens (on the wide end at least), it needs to be modernized and show sharper results somewhere other than the frame center. This lens lives on the shoulders of the sideline sports reporter, the wedding photographer during the reception, etc. and one would presume it is overwhelmingly shot wide open*, so better wide open performance would certainly be appreciated.

* Please straighten me out if that assumption is inaccurate, I tried to find a flickr EXIF search to verify that, but I can't find one that will put numbers to it.

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

I think I'm generally in agreement... maybe it was inferred otherwise? In any case... my point was that there likely will be a few (note... a FEW for those who do get the GAS and the need for newest/best or think they need the 2.8) more used f4's showing up in the coming months. I'm making an upgrade from a terribly outdated tamron 17-35 2.8... good but not great... I've waited a long time, I can wait a month or two more.

When the 16-35 f/4 IS came out, the prices of the used market for the 16-35 f/2.8 II dropped significantly. How much will the 16-35 f/2.8 III debut at? The 24-70 II and 100-400 II both started at 2000+. At that price, I can't see the 15-35 f/4 IS prices dropping much at all. Those that do upgrade from the II to the III will help push down the 16-35 f/2.8 II price in the used market.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

- A

iffy??? The current 16-35IIL is fine for landscapes...I would know...I've taken enough of them. Most L lenses I've tried way outperform most of the people I've seen use them:

There's nothing "iffy" about that lens...if you think there is...then you haven't been using it right.

 

[ahsanford]

There's nothing "iffy" about that lens...if you think there is...then you haven't been using it right.

Forgive me for not clarifying. It's "Iffy" from a sharpness perspective, and in fairness, that's a picky thing for me to say (but I'm surely not the only one who has said it here).

No one is saying you cannot render a great image with it. Lovely shots, btw, thanks for sharing.

Can you give some more context on the sunstars you spoke of before? I love mine on the 16-35 f/4L IS -- what makes you such a fan of them on the f/2.8L II?

- A

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

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!

That doesn't explain the 16-35 f4IS the EF-s 18-55 IS and the EF-s 10-18 IS.

Easier maybe, not possible, clearly not.

I think Canon were under pressure from Nikon. I've never seen the need for an IS on an ultra wide. If I'm shooting below 1/15th second...then I probably need a tripod and an IS unit is not substitute for a sturdy tripod. I'm regularly shooting at 30 seconds Plus exposure times.
Here's a shot at 253 seconds:

This image is pixel sharp at 100%. While I understand that some here have other shooting needs...this and wedding work is why I use this lens.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

There's nothing "iffy" about that lens...if you think there is...then you haven't been using it right.

Forgive me for not clarifying. It's "Iffy" from a sharpness perspective, and in fairness, that's a picky thing for me to say (but I'm surely not the only one who has said it here).

No one is saying you cannot render a great image with it. Lovely shots, btw, thanks for sharing.

Can you give some more context on the sunstars you spoke of before? I love mine on the 16-35 f/4L IS -- what makes you such a fan of them on the f/2.8L II?

- A

No probs, and your welcome.
The sunstar is a cobination of stopping down to f16 / f22. But it's shape and number of points is dependent on the number of aperture blades inside the aperture diaphragm. Odd numbers double the sunstars, even numbers produce symetrical. The 16-35IIL has just the right number of blades to look great and full. The 16-35 f4 LIS and the 24-70IIL both have a higher number of blades and their sunstars look too congested and too full to use as easily.

 

[Bobofango]

i enjoy doing astrophotography, especially northern light.

The coma distortion and image softness of the 16-35 mkii was a huge turnoff. So much so that I ended up going with the Tamron 15-30, instead of waiting for canon to play catchup to the third parties. Couldn't be happier! Especially after using it during the awesome G3 aurora storm of May 8th.

As for filters, there is an affordable 150x150mm holder from Haida on amazon. So for the price difference between the Tamron and Canon, I was able to put tHat towards a filter holder, + ND3.0 10stop filter + 0.9 graduated ND soft edge.

 

[bseitz234]

There's nothing "iffy" about that lens...if you think there is...then you haven't been using it right.

Forgive me for not clarifying. It's "Iffy" from a sharpness perspective, and in fairness, that's a picky thing for me to say (but I'm surely not the only one who has said it here).

No one is saying you cannot render a great image with it. Lovely shots, btw, thanks for sharing.

Can you give some more context on the sunstars you spoke of before? I love mine on the 16-35 f/4L IS -- what makes you such a fan of them on the f/2.8L II?

- A

No probs, and your welcome.
The sunstar is a cobination of stopping down to f16 / f22. But it's shape and number of points is dependent on the number of aperture blades inside the aperture diaphragm. Odd numbers double the sunstars, even numbers produce symetrical. The 16-35IIL has just the right number of blades to look great and full. The 16-35 f4 LIS and the 24-70IIL both have a higher number of blades and their sunstars look too congested and too full to use as easily.

Just wanted to throw a sidenote into this side conversation, on one big variable between sunstars- the straighter the aperture blades are, the cleaner the sunstars are. Usually. I think. (I haven't really done a controlled test of my own, hence "think".) If an aperture has rounded blades, even when it gets stopped way down, it doesn't have as clearly defined vertices, and the sunstar won't be as pronounced, or at least as clearly defined. Apparently the 16-35 f/4 IS is sort of an exception to this rule, but I could actually see designing aperture blades that have a variable amount of rounding, so that if it's stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 you keep the rounded aperture, but by f/16 or f/22 you get straight sides and pronounced sunstars....

 

[Rick]

I've been waiting on this lens for at least 10 years if not longer (assuming it is actually sharp at the edges and corners)but the 11-24L kicked it off my wish list. I don't even want to think about an f2.8 version of the 11-24L. For folks looking for low-light solutions, I am happy for you.

 

[Skywise]

Oooooh... Do I sell my mkII now and assume the mkIII is that much better or wait...

 

[wsmith96]

Looks like Canon's getting its lens line-up ready for the 1dx2 and future new 5D. Looking forward to see the reviews for this one.

 

[tphillips63]

I'm sure it will be great. The current IS f/4 is for sure poaching sales over the current model. As details come out, I will most likely order it for sure. I really like the look of the current model but it is pretty soft as you all know.
I can't hardly believe it has been 9 years since it was released to great reviews.

 

[Good24]

What pray tell is the most glaring weakness that this new lens solves?

Two words: chromatic abberation. (That's the weakness, no clue if it gets solved!)

That's been my experience anyway. Like others have said, it's great stopped down and great for starburst effect. It's even great, wide open, on a cloudy day.

For me I doubt I'll get the III. I keep thinking about getting rid of the mark II but the upside just mentioned keeps me hanging on. I've used the 11-24 - way too big for me. I've used the TS 17mm and that would be my next, perhaps only additional wide angle I'd get. Although I do like this speculation about a blue goo 24 L III. And btw check out the image gallery for my recent Voigtlander 20mm samples - heck of a wide lens in a tiny package.

 

[Bennymiata]

I really like my MkII and feel no need to update it.
I don't do many landscapes but I use it for real estate, product and events, where it does a really good job.
It has great colour and contrast, and NONE of my customers has ever complained about soft corners.

I won't be updating it anytime soon.