Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L IS - Strongly Desired

[mikekx102]

Hi there!

Has anyone heard any rumors of this lens being developed? Perhaps alongside the 24-70mm F2.8L IS...

This would be my do-all lens, and the first lens I ever pre-order.

I was going to get a Zeis 15mm f2.8 for Astro shots but realised a 16-35mm f2.8 would be far more versitile as I would use it for:

• Milky Way and Aurora shots
• Landscapes / Night Landscapes
• Nature video clips for screensavers - hence optical IS strongly desired
• Video clips of weight lifting
• Other general purpose photos and video clips

The video features of the 1DX Mark II are a strong part of the reason I bought it. (Still waiting for the C-Log firmware update though - and I sent a message to Canon asking for it to happen)

I know Tamron makes one of these, but I'm after a Canon-L-series-superb-quality-keep-forever type lens.


Mike.

 

[Michael Clark]

Considering Canon just released the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L III a year or so ago and that the EF 16-35mm f/4 IS is also relatively fresh, you're going to be waiting a LONG time.

 

[padam]

Unlike the 24-70 2.8L IS, this is simply not going to happen (just like the Canon C-Log for the 1DXII, for that matter)

 

[ahsanford]

I know Tamron makes one of these, but I'm after a Canon-L-series-superb-quality-keep-forever type lens.

Tamron makes an impostor, technically.

No thread-in front-filtering is a big deal -- no CPL for reflection management in landscapes, no ND for waterfalls or slowing down the shutter on scorchingly bright days, no UV/clear option to protect against incidental contact that comes up with fun ultra-close 16mm shots, etc. If you think I'm nuts, try using an outrigger square filter holder once on the Tamron (compared to just threading it in on either 16-35 Canon) and you will find yourself asking how badly you needed f/2.8 and IS in one instrument.

My recommendation -- there is no one UWA to rule them all. If you shoot:

Sports / Reportage / Environmental portraiture / etc. = AF speed and sharpness wins: get the 16-35 f/2.8L III

Video / Hiking / Landscapes = get the 16-35 f/4L IS (low weight, IS, don't need f/2.8 nearly as much)

Astro = the Tamron is a wise call here b/c of f/2.8 and far better 16mm vignetting than the f/2.8L III

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Considering Canon just released the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II a year or so ago and that the EF 16-35mm f/4 IS is also relatively fresh, you're going to be waiting a LONG time.

+1. Between those two and the recent 11-24L, all bets on new FF UWA lenses from Canon are off. They might not revisit this sector for 5+ years.

(Typo above: the last f/2.8L was version III.)

- A

 

[stevelee]

Video / Hiking / Landscapes = get the 16-35 f/4L IS (low weight, IS, don't need f/2.8 nearly as much)

That would seem to be doubly true (which may be what you meant anyway). The subject matter doesn't need the wider aperture, and the IS makes the need even less. Even with short focal lengths, it would seem you would want to stop down a bit for landscapes for several reasons, IQ, DOF, vignetting, among them.

You mentioned video. Is there some particular virtue of this lens for video other than the low weight and IS? Would tracking AF work particularly well with this lens?

I ask because I'm fairly sure that when I want to get a lens wider than the 24mm end of my kit zoom, this is my choice.

While I could afford the lens right now, I think, there is enough (temporary, I hope) financial uncertainty that I don't fee. comfortable buying more than one lens any time soon, at least until all is resolved. So I need to prioritize. If I were still doing a little paying work for realtors, my priorities would be different. For now, I can use the 10-22mm on my T3i if I need UWA, but my only telephoto option is the old 75-300mm that is beset with CA. Unfortunately, I have not made as much progress in deciding what I want to replace it with. So I'm in a bit of limbo in lens shopping. But I'm still interested in learning about my future options. I bought the 6D2 for my October birthday, so late Septemberish will be time for me to get myself and/or the camera a birthday present. So I'll probably be shopping in that time frame whatever happens unless catastrophic.

 

[ahsanford]

You mentioned video. Is there some particular virtue of this lens for video other than the low weight and IS? Would tracking AF work particularly well with this lens?

I don't shoot any video, do I can't comment there. The 16-35 f/4L IS simply has IS, so it would appear to be a better call than the f/2.8L III. But you know what you need better than I do -- you may be shooting your video on a tripod, have a gimbal, etc. that might obviate the the need for IS, you might really need f/2.8, etc. so I defer to you.

- A

 

[stevelee]

You mentioned video. Is there some particular virtue of this lens for video other than the low weight and IS? Would tracking AF work particularly well with this lens?

I don't shoot any video, do I can't comment there. The 16-35 f/4L IS simply has IS, so it would appear to be a better call than the f/2.8L III. But you know what you need better than I do -- you may be shooting your video on a tripod, have a gimbal, etc. that might obviate the the need for IS, you might really need f/2.8, etc. so I defer to you.

- A

Thanks. I was just wanting clarification of what you meant, especially in case I missed something. The IS in the lens works with the in-camera software of the 6D2, so that is a good reason in itself. I don’t shoot much video, and am not inclined toward UWA when I do, so it is not a big consideration per se, but nice to know.

 

[mikekx102]

Unlike the 24-70 2.8L IS, this is simply not going to happen (just like the Canon C-Log for the 1DXII, for that matter)

I'd like to think this is just being pessimistic considering that a firmware update is becoming available for the 5D Mark IV to purchase C-Log, but knowing Canon you are probably correct.

Considering Canon just released the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II a year or so ago and that the EF 16-35mm f/4 IS is also relatively fresh, you're going to be waiting a LONG time.

+1. Between those two and the recent 11-24L, all bets on new FF UWA lenses from Canon are off. They might not revisit this sector for 5+ years.

(Typo above: the last f/2.8L was version III.)

- A

This does make sense. It is quite annoying however that the first kit lenses you get with the Rebel line of cameras all have optical IS and you get used to it as a rookie, but then on the best and brightest lenses it is not always available as an option (I get that there are engineering challenges).

I know Tamron makes one of these, but I'm after a Canon-L-series-superb-quality-keep-forever type lens.

Tamron makes an impostor, technically.

No thread-in front-filtering is a big deal -- no CPL for reflection management in landscapes, no ND for waterfalls or slowing down the shutter on scorchingly bright days, no UV/clear option to protect against incidental contact that comes up with fun ultra-close 16mm shots, etc. If you think I'm nuts, try using an outrigger square filter holder once on the Tamron (compared to just threading it in on either 16-35 Canon) and you will find yourself asking how badly you needed f/2.8 and IS in one instrument.

My recommendation -- there is no one UWA to rule them all. If you shoot:

Sports / Reportage / Environmental portraiture / etc. = AF speed and sharpness wins: get the 16-35 f/2.8L III

Video / Hiking / Landscapes = get the 16-35 f/4L IS (low weight, IS, don't need f/2.8 nearly as much)

Astro = the Tamron is a wise call here b/c of f/2.8 and far better 16mm vignetting than the f/2.8L III

- A

Interesting. I guess where I need to go from here is to investigate how steady my tripod footage is in high winds and whether I can stabilize my tripod more and see how effective the post production stabilization software is for if things go wrong. The IS is only for video so if I can get superb video without IS then all is well.

Considering my passion for night landscapes I think F/2.8 is essential, and I use my LEE filter set for most landscapes so a thread-in-filtered lens is a good choice.

 

[Grimbald]

Hmm, I do have the 15-30 Tamron and I'm very happy with it, but as pointed out, the filters are a pain. I've spend more on filters for this thing than the lense itself, and if I could go back in time I'd probably just get the 16-35mm III.
Unless you do alot of handheld wide angle filming, you simply wont need IS that much at this focal lenght.