Canon Working on Faster f/2.8 Ultra Wide Zoom [CR2]

[Etienne]

Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?

Impossible to predict. It's a favorite photo journalism lens, probably much more practical than the 12-24 range. And future high ISO improvements may make an update to the f/2.8 even less relevant.
Long term, I would think:

1. 12-24 (or 14-24) f/2.8L
2. 16-35 f/4L IS (the 17-40 f/4L is a goner I think)
3. 16-35 f/2.8L III (I tend to think there'll be an update)

I think there's room for all three zooms, and if push came to shove I would probably favor an optically excellent 16-35 2.8L III over an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS. But I'd prefer an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS over the less-than-excellent 16-35 f/2.8L II (which I currently own, and love). The 14 f/2.8L II may not see another update.

I think the 17-40L will stay, and so will the 16-35 II. The 12/4-24 and 16-35 will be additions.

same.

with the 17-40 and the 24-105 sticking around, canon doesn't have to create any cheap consumer lenses for full frame for now.

They won't disappear immediately, but I can't see either the 17-40 or the 24-105 sticking around too much longer. I have a 24-105, but if I was buying today, I'd get the 24-70 f/4L IS over the 24-105. The new lenses are much better, why not pay a few extra $

 

[unfocused]

They won't disappear immediately, but I can't see either the 17-40 or the 24-105 sticking around too much longer. I have a 24-105, but if I was buying today, I'd get the 24-70 f/4L IS over the 24-105. The new lenses are much better, why not pay a few extra $

Possibly because they are more versatile. For me, 24-70 is just too short for a decent walk all-around lens to keep on the camera most of the time. The 16-35 is pretty close to 17-40, so that may not be as much of an issue. But, still, 40mm can come a lot closer to serving as a "normal" lens than 35mm.

I agree with others who have said they like a little overlap on their lenses, so there isn't as much switching needed when you're out and about.

I guess it just depends on what your individual needs and preferences are, but Canon does seem to like to keep a lot of lenses in their lineup. I suspect that at this point the 24-105mm, 17-40mm, 70-200 f4 non-IS, 100-400, 300 f4, etc. etc. are cash cows that contribute to the bottom line well above their pay grade.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?

Impossible to predict. It's a favorite photo journalism lens, probably much more practical than the 12-24 range. And future high ISO improvements may make an update to the f/2.8 even less relevant.
Long term, I would think:

1. 12-24 (or 14-24) f/2.8L
2. 16-35 f/4L IS (the 17-40 f/4L is a goner I think)
3. 16-35 f/2.8L III (I tend to think there'll be an update)

I think there's room for all three zooms, and if push came to shove I would probably favor an optically excellent 16-35 2.8L III over an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS. But I'd prefer an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS over the less-than-excellent 16-35 f/2.8L II (which I currently own, and love). The 14 f/2.8L II may not see another update.

I think the 17-40L will stay, and so will the 16-35 II. The 12/4-24 and 16-35 will be additions.

same.

with the 17-40 and the 24-105 sticking around, canon doesn't have to create any cheap consumer lenses for full frame for now.

They won't disappear immediately, but I can't see either the 17-40 or the 24-105 sticking around too much longer. I have a 24-105, but if I was buying today, I'd get the 24-70 f/4L IS over the 24-105. The new lenses are much better, why not pay a few extra $

Think 70-200 non-IS vs IS. Many might not NEED the improved IQ or IS, and the price point is important. I do see the 17-40L getting a bit cheaper, btw.

 

[Ruined]

I know there is a lot of interest in a revamp of the 16-35 f/2.8 II that has the same IQ as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

I really don't think it is going to happen anytime remotely soon though, and here is why:

Time between 24-70 I and 24-70 II: 10 years
24-70 I designed in 2002.
24-70 II increased size of front element, and total number of elements
Difference? Massive.

Time between 16-35 I and 16-35 II: 6 years
16-35 I designed in 2001.
16-35 II increased size of front element, total number of groups and elements, new coatings, etc
Difference? Only somewhat better, nowhere near the improvement 24-70 made.
16-35 II is 7 years old.

Given that the 16-35 II is a fairly recent design, being released the same year as the jaw-dropping 85L II, and the fact that ver2 was not largely better than ver1 despite larger front element, more total elements, new coatings, etc - indicates to me that 16-35mm f/2.8 is extremely difficult to get super sharpness from the wide end without a bulbous element. Every example of a similar zoom range I've heard people trumpet as being super sharp had that bulbous element.

IMO, for reportage and event photography a bulbous element is undesirable. It sticks out and is not able to handle as much rough and tough action as a regular lens; you don't even have the option of attaching a protective. People/objects banging into your camera and all. And if you use them, no screw in ND filters or CPL with a bulbous either, instead requiring a contraption for ND filters.

So while a 16-35 f/2.8 with much better performance is likely possible, it likely would also require a bulbous front element. The minimal improvement despite the size increase and number of elements increased between v1 and v2 makes it look to me that that sort of design is getting near as good as it gets.

If anyone can point to a non-bulbous 16-35 f/2.8 that destroys the 16-35 II in image quality, I would be interested in seeing it. If not, that might be your answer right there.

A lineup that would make sense to me:


17-40 f/4 - Budget
16-35 f/4 IS - Landscape photography
16-35 f/2.8 II - Event photography/reportage
14-24 f/2.8 (or 12-24) w/ bulbous element - Extreme landscape photography

If Canon came out with a 16-35 III, even if it looked as good as the Nikon 14-24 I'm sure some landscape photographers would be disappointed because it didn't go as wide... So I think that would be a bigger hit than a 16-35 III.

 

[ME]

After reading for ages I took now the time to register and would like to ask:

Does [CR2] also apply to "a higher megapixel full frame prosumer camera body" - and what could that be?

This forum is so full of inspiration regarding photography - thank you all.

Thomas

I too am curious about the new camera portion of that statement. I am thinking that since the lens release is (supposedly) dependent on the release of the new camera, then the camera release is a CR2 also. But who knows. I am more interested in the new camera portion of that rumor than the new lens release. Like you, I dont know how seriously to take that statement. Welcome to CR

 

[wickidwombat]

16-35 f2.8 IS

please put IS on some fast glass is that too much to ask?

 

[Etienne]

I know there is a lot of interest in a revamp of the 16-35 f/2.8 II that has the same IQ as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

I really don't think it is going to happen anytime remotely soon though, and here is why:

Time between 24-70 I and 24-70 II: 10 years
24-70 I designed in 2002.
24-70 II increased size of front element, and total number of elements
Difference? Massive.

Time between 16-35 I and 16-35 II: 6 years
16-35 I designed in 2001.
16-35 II increased size of front element, total number of groups and elements, new coatings, etc
Difference? Only somewhat better, nowhere near the improvement 24-70 made.
16-35 II is 7 years old.

Given that the 16-35 II is a fairly recent design, being released the same year as the jaw-dropping 85L II, and the fact that ver2 was not largely better than ver1 despite larger front element, more total elements, new coatings, etc - indicates to me that 16-35mm f/2.8 is extremely difficult to get super sharpness from the wide end without a bulbous element. Every example of a similar zoom range I've heard people trumpet as being super sharp had that bulbous element.

IMO, for reportage and event photography a bulbous element is undesirable. It sticks out and is not able to handle as much rough and tough action as a regular lens; you don't even have the option of attaching a protective. People/objects banging into your camera and all. And if you use them, no screw in ND filters or CPL with a bulbous either, instead requiring a contraption for ND filters.

So while a 16-35 f/2.8 with much better performance is likely possible, it likely would also require a bulbous front element. The minimal improvement despite the size increase and number of elements increased between v1 and v2 makes it look to me that that sort of design is getting near as good as it gets.

If anyone can point to a non-bulbous 16-35 f/2.8 that destroys the 16-35 II in image quality, I would be interested in seeing it. If not, that might be your answer right there.

A lineup that would make sense to me:


17-40 f/4 - Budget
16-35 f/4 IS - Landscape photography
16-35 f/2.8 II - Event photography/reportage
14-24 f/2.8 (or 12-24) w/ bulbous element - Extreme landscape photography

If Canon came out with a 16-35 III, even if it looked as good as the Nikon 14-24 I'm sure some landscape photographers would be disappointed because it didn't go as wide... So I think that would be a bigger hit than a 16-35 III.

I don't know why an f/4 lens can get great mtf results without a bulbous lens, but an f/2.8 would need a bulbous front. At 16mm the angles are the same. .. but I don't design lenses, you might be right. Anyway is good to have choices, but the new 16-35mm looks like it will produce sharper more contrasty shots than either of the existing lenses

 

[Ruined]

I don't know why an f/4 lens can get great mtf results without a bulbous lens, but an f/2.8 would need a bulbous front. At 16mm the angles are the same. .. but I don't design lenses, you might be right. Anyway is good to have choices, but the new 16-35mm looks like it will produce sharper more contrasty shots than either of the existing lenses

Just worth pointing out, Nikon has the same deal.

16-35 f/4 VR - sharp
17-35 f/2.8 (flat) - weak corners (actually worse than Canon's corners with more CA).
14-24 f/2.8 (bulbous) - sharp

Also other third party f/2.8 lenses I've heard people compare the 16-35 II to that are sharper with similar range have been bulbous.

I am not a lens designer either but a trend appears to have formed.

 

[timcz]

Sounds like we will get something pretty similar to Nikons current lineup then. My guess will be the two new lenses, and the 16-35 II prob sticking around for the more event/PJ stuff (where the corners probably dont matter as much).

Im more interested in the "higher mp prosumer body"

 

[sanj]

For travel landscape shooting, the 16-35 4L IS is perfect. The IS makes hand held slow shutter speed and low ISO possible which is great. For serious landscape work, really should be looking at the TS-E or Zeiss lenses. For event and photojournalism, the new 2.8 would be the choice to stop the motion.

16-35 IS promises to be great for the most serious of the serious landscape work. At f8 I urge you to show me any difference between the Canon and any other lens.

 

[sanj]

Does this mean no 16-35 f/2.8 III?

Impossible to predict. It's a favorite photo journalism lens, probably much more practical than the 12-24 range. And future high ISO improvements may make an update to the f/2.8 even less relevant.
Long term, I would think:

1. 12-24 (or 14-24) f/2.8L
2. 16-35 f/4L IS (the 17-40 f/4L is a goner I think)
3. 16-35 f/2.8L III (I tend to think there'll be an update)

I think there's room for all three zooms, and if push came to shove I would probably favor an optically excellent 16-35 2.8L III over an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS. But I'd prefer an optically excellent 16-35 f/4L IS over the less-than-excellent 16-35 f/2.8L II (which I currently own, and love). The 14 f/2.8L II may not see another update.

I think the 17-40L will stay, and so will the 16-35 II. The 12/4-24 and 16-35 will be additions.

Same same

 

[rrcphoto]

I don't know why an f/4 lens can get great mtf results without a bulbous lens, but an f/2.8 would need a bulbous front. At 16mm the angles are the same. .. but I don't design lenses, you might be right. Anyway is good to have choices, but the new 16-35mm looks like it will produce sharper more contrasty shots than either of the existing lenses

Just worth pointing out, Nikon has the same deal.

16-35 f/4 VR - sharp
17-35 f/2.8 (flat) - weak corners (actually worse than Canon's corners with more CA).
14-24 f/2.8 (bulbous) - sharp

Also other third party f/2.8 lenses I've heard people compare the 16-35 II to that are sharper with similar range have been bulbous.

I am not a lens designer either but a trend appears to have formed.

14 2.8 bulbous .. not that sharp at the corners. that has little bearing on the lens sharpness but more to do with FOV.

 

[rrcphoto]

I know there is a lot of interest in a revamp of the 16-35 f/2.8 II that has the same IQ as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

I really don't think it is going to happen anytime remotely soon though, and here is why:

Time between 24-70 I and 24-70 II: 10 years
24-70 I designed in 2002.
24-70 II increased size of front element, and total number of elements
Difference? Massive.

Time between 16-35 I and 16-35 II: 6 years
16-35 I designed in 2001.
16-35 II increased size of front element, total number of groups and elements, new coatings, etc
Difference? Only somewhat better, nowhere near the improvement 24-70 made.
16-35 II is 7 years old.

canon added a bunch of super wide / ultra wide patients. they also changed alot of their lens R&D and development technology.

the fact of the matter is .. if canon can come up with a 14-24 then they can certainly improve on a 16-35 - and that certainly needs it more .. first.

 

[278204]

Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?

 

[climber]

Thinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?

For night sky, f/2.8 is nice to have.

 

[Malm]

Concerning the bulbous front element:

At least Zeiss is able to build an excellent 15/2,8 lens without a bulbous front element. Well, but it's a prime lens and not a zoom lense.

 

[278204]

(Veering a bit off-topic here, sorry) Only done night sky a couple of times and chose f8. What do you get at wider apertures? Is the idea to stop the stars streaking?

 

[Ruined]

Concerning the bulbous front element:

At least Zeiss is able to build an excellent 15/2,8 lens without a bulbous front element. Well, but it's a prime lens and not a zoom lense.

ok, yes a couple of things:
1) prime as you stated so totally different
2) not bulbous but requires 95mm filter - 16-35 II 82mm
3) no autofocus

I know for an event photographer likely all three of these compromises would be a deal killer. Canon's last improvement to the 16-35 included increasing the front element so that it required 82mm filters instead of 77mm. While further improvements could be made likely by going beyond 82mm, question is do people want this for event photography/reportage as some already complain the current 82mm is too big.

might make more sense to focus on landscape who would probably prefer wider than 16mm and wouldn't care about front element size/shape.

 

[ewg963]

Concerning the bulbous front element:

At least Zeiss is able to build an excellent 15/2,8 lens without a bulbous front element. Well, but it's a prime lens and not a zoom lense.

ok, yes a couple of things:
1) prime as you stated so totally different
2) not bulbous but requires 95mm filter - 16-35 II 82mm
3) no autofocus

I know for an event photographer likely all three of these compromises would be a deal killer. Canon's last improvement to the 16-35 included increasing the front element so that it required 82mm filters instead of 77mm. While further improvements could be made likely by going beyond 82mm, question is do people want this for event photography/reportage as some already complain the current 82mm is too big.

might make more sense to focus on landscape who would probably prefer wider than 16mm and wouldn't care about front element size/shape.

+1

 

[Sabaki]

Thing is this lens must happen and performance must not be compromised.

I believe that if this lens delivers unparalleled performance, filters will happen.

I started my photographic journey three years back and from the reviews, the user feedback I read, there were three lenses that were considered necessary but were not loved. Canon 50mm f/1.4, 24-70 f/2.8 mki and the 16-35mm f/2.8 mkii.

Hopefully the 50mm f/1.4 will have a story that unfurls like the 24-70's did. The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkii has changed sentiment across the photographic community. From comments like 'necessary workhorse' to 'I don't like the 24-70 but I need it for my work', the mkii has people raving! It's as good as the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii and has become as desired.

Canon need to acknowledge that the 16-35 f/2.8ii needs similar treatment. They need to keep in the back of their minds that professional togs who spend big money on equipment sometimes buy Tamron or Sigma UWA because their flagship lens underperforms.

I for one am extremely hopeful, judging by the new 16-35 f/4.0, I believe that Canon has a recipe for success. I've got my fingers crossed.