• The Canon Rumors Forum has officially been shut down as of July 10, 2026.

    All data will be deleted on September 16, 2026.

    the ad free experience will return by July 17, 2026.

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

Canon Rumors

Who Dey
Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 20, 2010
12,874
5,707
279,596
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16510"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16510">Tweet</a></div>
We were told almost immediately after the announcement of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">EF 16-35 f/4L IS</a> that Canon is indeed working on an f/2.8 ultra wide angle zoom. The lens will be wider than 16mm, although the exact optical formula is not known. We have heard in the past that an EF 12-24 f/2.8L  or <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/" target="_blank">EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a> was in the works to compete with the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G, which some Canon shooters have converted to their EOS bodies.</p>
<p>It was stressed that the lens was “not close” to being announced, and would probably arrive within 6 months of a higher megapixel full frame prosumer camera body.</p>
<p>We’re also told that the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 17-40 f/4L</a> will remain a current product in the Canon lineup for the time being. Although with how close they are in price, which I’m still surprised about. I can’t see many people not savings a bit longer for the new lens. This may be a matter of depleting stock before discontinuation.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS $1199:</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=6AVWEQKBYJ7TXPHU" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a></strong> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA16354.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
 
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
 
Upvote 0
DRR said:
Isn't there generally a patent that surfaces a few months before a lens is announced and then ships?

Have there been any patents by Canon that correlate with this range/aperture?

Quite many actually AFAIK. I've seen many patents and rumors about either 14-24/2.8 or even 12-24/2.8 on this web past few months/years.
 
Upvote 0
Love the idea of the updates. But I wonder if Canon's plan is to keep size and weight down with f/2.8 zooms (rumored 12/14-24 L and the 24-70 II) so they will not have IS and f/4 (16-35 f/4 IS; 24-70/105 f/4), requiring less glass, will have IS.

If that is the case, my decision is simple, the 16-35 f/4 IS. Four stops of IS will be much more useful to me for landscapes than 1 stop of aperture.

Glad I've held off on buying my UWA zoom lens.
 
Upvote 0
Canon Rumors said:
We’re also told that the Canon EF 17-40 f/4L will remain a current product in the Canon lineup for the time being. Although with how close they are in price, which I’m still surprised about. I can’t see many people not savings a bit longer for the new lens.

Not a surprise at all to me. the EF 17-40 is currently selling for $739 after rebate. Bring it down to $650 and it makes a nice alternative to the new 16-45 "L" for those who want an ultra-wide for occasional use, but don't need IS or razor sharp corners. The extra 5mm at the long end also makes it more versatile as a "walk around" lens.

Canon has kept the 70-200mm f4 non-IS in the lineup at a similar price differential and IS is far more important on a telephoto than an ultra-wide.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
In the US the prices maybe close but in Europe they are not £ 1,199 for the 16-35mm f4L and £ 629 for the 17-40mm f4L thats a big difference. Interestingly the 16-35mm f2.8 II is £ 1,214 only £ 15.00 more ($ 25)
Go figure European pricing!

Compare that to the B&H prices which are $ 1,699 for the 16-35mm f4L and $ 839 for the 17-40mm f4L
 
Upvote 0
Random Orbits said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
Khalai said:
DRR said:
Isn't there generally a patent that surfaces a few months before a lens is announced and then ships?

Have there been any patents by Canon that correlate with this range/aperture?

Quite many actually AFAIK. I've seen many patents and rumors about either 14-24/2.8 or even 12-24/2.8 on this web past few months/years.

I've seen rumors, and the continual link of one patent which doesn't have a 14-24/2.8 embodiment at all with it.

so i'd be curious on these many patents.
 
Upvote 0
Etienne said:
Random Orbits said:
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 could see this more than i could see the 16-35/2.8 being dropped from the lens lineup - this is a very useful lens that accepts filters.
 
Upvote 0
Etienne said:
Random Orbits said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
sagittariansrock said:
Etienne said:
Random Orbits said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
jeffa4444 said:
In the US the prices maybe close but in Europe they are not £ 1,199 for the 16-35mm f4L and £ 629 for the 17-40mm f4L thats a big difference. Interestingly the 16-35mm f2.8 II is £ 1,214 only £ 15.00 more ($ 25)
Go figure European pricing!

Compare that to the B&H prices which are $ 1,699 for the 16-35mm f4L and $ 839 for the 17-40mm f4L

I have checked German prices and they are from 1249 EUR for 16-35 f2.8L II and 1019 EUR for 16-35 for f4.0L (preorder, I expect that the price will drop under 1000 EUR soon) with VAT.
 
Upvote 0