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

[pedro]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16510"></glusone></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>

sounds fine. the 12-24 F/2.8 plus the 5DIV as a christmas announcement? but unfortunately this looks like a 6-6.5k $ package...or am I wrong. I guess Canon will ask at least 2k US$ for the new lens, or even more...?

 

[stefsan]

(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?

Exactly. If you wish to get a nice shot where you can see the Milky Way above a nice bit of landscape you want to to have a fast ultra wide angle lens to minimize exposure times and lessen the need to use high ISOs. And in a perfect world this UWA lens would give you really good corner sharpness and no coma aberration (optical aberration distorting the stars in the corner to oblong splotches).
If the 16-36 f4 would deliver that kind of optical quality/sharpness across the whole frame (FF), I would be willing to give up f2.8 :

 

[pierlux]

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.

For moving subjects. IS does not help stopping motion blur when elements in the scene are moving, it only compensates for the camera/lens shake. Photojournalists may prefer a f/2.8 non-IS lens over a f/4 IS one; to them, distorsion is a minor issue compared to motion blur.

 

[Cali_PH]

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

A bulbous front element could matter to many that use filters, common in landscape photography. It would most likely be incompatible with the few existing holders designed for bulbous elements, meaning a potentially long wait for someone to come up with one for the new lens. Even if it happens to work with one of the existing ones, they're expensive and require larger, very expensive filters.

 

[Canon 14-24]

The ultra wide fund has been accumulating since the release in 2007 with the Nikon 14-24...already pre-ordered the 16-35 f/4 IS and I'll pre-order the 14-24 or 12-24 as well!

Who says you need to pick between them?! There are different purposes of both and I'll sure as hell use both!

14-24 - astro/night/architecture (yes even still alongside the 17mm ts-e)/interiors(big difference between 14mm and 16mm!)/indoor events(2.8 faster for motion w/ or without flash)
16-35 - waterfalls (full ND filters)/landscape (longer zoom range for versatility on limited trails or dusty/sandy conditions with the extra protection need of a front filter)/walk around casual hand holding outdoor events

 

[tron]

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.

+1, plus it has to be coma free

 

[rs]

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?

Opening up the aperture doesn't just reduce the depth of field - it also yields faster shutter speeds for the same ISO. So if we take the depth of field at ultrawide angles as being minimally reduced by shooting at f2.8 instead of f4, it's for anyone who wants a fast shutter speed, or keep the same shutter speed with a lower ISO. Which means any photographer shooting moving subjects who want to minimise noise. Events, weddings, sports, and stars all spring to mind.

As useful as IS is, at such short focal lengths camera shake only really has an effect with a very slow shutter - so this is purely of an advantage to photographs of completely stationary subjects, and of course videographers.

I photograph both still and moving subjects with an ultrawide, and due to the usability of long shutters without IS, I believe a brighter aperture is of more use than IS for me with this mixed usage. Therefore as I'm in no pressing need to hit the buy button right now, I'm going to sit this one out and wait to see what comes of an f2.8 ultrawide zoom. And I can rest assured that if nothing comes up before I need to jump, there'll be a damn good f4 IS option available as a backup plan.

 

[Etienne]

Off Topic, but I can't resist:

I like extra light (fast lens) as much as the next guy. A lens I'd like to see is a 24 1.4L III , and make it deadly. I'd pay dear for that, and I may end up with another of the current v II. I returned my last one because I could not get it focus reliably with my 5D2 on anything beyond 5 or 6 feet away. Maybe the 5D3 would be better. The 24 1.4L II is soft in the corners wide open, but it can give great results anyway, so improve on it and I'd give up the flexibility of a zoom when the light disappears. Imagine a 5DIV at ISO 50,000 and a wide 1.4 lens!

Anyway one extra stop from 16-35 f/4 IS to 16-35 2.8 is ok, but I'd be happy with 16-35 f/4L IS for good light, and 24 1.4 + 35 f/2 IS for see in the dark work. When the light is gone now, I go out with the 35 f/2 IS, and it does a great job. When you really need light, get lots of it with a prime.

 

[Random Orbits]

Off Topic, but I can't resist:

I like extra light (fast lens) as much as the next guy. A lens I'd like to see is a 24 1.4L III , and make it deadly. I'd pay dear for that, and I may end up with another of the current v II. I returned my last one because I could not get it focus reliably with my 5D2 on anything beyond 5 or 6 feet away. Maybe the 5D3 would be better. The 24 1.4L II is soft in the corners wide open, but it can give great results anyway, so improve on it and I'd give up the flexibility of a zoom when the light disappears. Imagine a 5DIV at ISO 50,000 and a wide 1.4 lens!

Anyway one extra stop from 16-35 f/4 IS to 16-35 2.8 is ok, but I'd be happy with 16-35 f/4L IS for good light, and 24 1.4 + 35 f/2 IS for see in the dark work. When the light is gone now, I go out with the 35 f/2 IS, and it does a great job. When you really need light, get lots of it with a prime.

Never had a problem with the 24L II on my 5DII when using the center point, even near MFD, but yes, it is awesome with the 5DIII, where so many other AF points can be used to get repeatable/accurate results.

 

[Etienne]

Off Topic, but I can't resist:

I like extra light (fast lens) as much as the next guy. A lens I'd like to see is a 24 1.4L III , and make it deadly. I'd pay dear for that, and I may end up with another of the current v II. I returned my last one because I could not get it focus reliably with my 5D2 on anything beyond 5 or 6 feet away. Maybe the 5D3 would be better. The 24 1.4L II is soft in the corners wide open, but it can give great results anyway, so improve on it and I'd give up the flexibility of a zoom when the light disappears. Imagine a 5DIV at ISO 50,000 and a wide 1.4 lens!

Anyway one extra stop from 16-35 f/4 IS to 16-35 2.8 is ok, but I'd be happy with 16-35 f/4L IS for good light, and 24 1.4 + 35 f/2 IS for see in the dark work. When the light is gone now, I go out with the 35 f/2 IS, and it does a great job. When you really need light, get lots of it with a prime.

Never had a problem with the 24L II on my 5DII when using the center point, even near MFD, but yes, it is awesome with the 5DIII, where so many other AF points can be used to get repeatable/accurate results.

It may have been my copy, or my camera, but that was years ago and I didn't want to switch around copies at the time. I have never forgot about that lens; I think it's one of the more interesting lenses around, and if they made it sharp from 1.4 it would be irresistible.

 

[278204]

I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

Sports, yeah I agree with ya not much sports shooting at 16mm.

But for events and weddings...yeah, 16mm is quite handy, especially at a reception for the fun dancing shots. And yes, on occasion 16mm is useful for big landscape style portraits - though that kind of work isn't everyones cup of tea. Either way, think of it like this, epic background, one location, same pose - 1 series of shots at 16mm, another at 24, another at 50, then shift to the 70-200 and you have at least 4 shots from the same spot with the same poses but each one is unique...

 

[Etienne]

I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

Lots of dramatic sports shots are taken with Wide and UW lenses. The first three olympic shots at telegraph here are ultrawide http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/picturegalleries/9461272/London-2012-Olympics-Photographers-tricks.html?frame=2302709
More on that http://magicvalley.com/blogs/between-the-frames/wide-angle-sports-shooting/article_d875ca72-43ed-11e2-8493-0019bb2963f4.html

Google will get you tons of examples wide shots. And a huge proportion of winning journalism shots are captured at wide - ultrawide.

 

[278204]

Cool. You can get away with crowd photos at f4, but I can see the need for big apertures with those wide angle jumpers and basketball players. Striking photos.

I'm in the market for a wide angle but don't have any experience beyond 24mm (it shows) - these answers really help understand what I miss out on depending on the lens I buy.

 

[278204]

I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

Sports, yeah I agree with ya not much sports shooting at 16mm.

But for events and weddings...yeah, 16mm is quite handy, especially at a reception for the fun dancing shots. And yes, on occasion 16mm is useful for big landscape style portraits - though that kind of work isn't everyones cup of tea. Either way, think of it like this, epic background, one location, same pose - 1 series of shots at 16mm, another at 24, another at 50, then shift to the 70-200 and you have at least 4 shots from the same spot with the same poses but each one is unique...

Cool, found out what quote does on the forum.

Don't normally use wide open for landscape, I guess maybe to stop leaves blurring in strong wind with low light. Normally want DOF and use tripod. But I definitely see your point for indoor events - I don't do weddings but I've had a few school parties where I could have done with more aperture and wider angle.

 

[Canon 14-24]

I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

Sports, yeah I agree with ya not much sports shooting at 16mm.

But for events and weddings...yeah, 16mm is quite handy, especially at a reception for the fun dancing shots. And yes, on occasion 16mm is useful for big landscape style portraits - though that kind of work isn't everyones cup of tea. Either way, think of it like this, epic background, one location, same pose - 1 series of shots at 16mm, another at 24, another at 50, then shift to the 70-200 and you have at least 4 shots from the same spot with the same poses but each one is unique...

If you consider skateboarding or snowboard/ski as a sport then yes ultra wide and even fish eye up close to the action are even used.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

Sports, yeah I agree with ya not much sports shooting at 16mm.

But for events and weddings...yeah, 16mm is quite handy, especially at a reception for the fun dancing shots. And yes, on occasion 16mm is useful for big landscape style portraits - though that kind of work isn't everyones cup of tea. Either way, think of it like this, epic background, one location, same pose - 1 series of shots at 16mm, another at 24, another at 50, then shift to the 70-200 and you have at least 4 shots from the same spot with the same poses but each one is unique...

If you consider skateboarding or snowboard/ski as a sport then yes ultra wide and even fish eye up close to the action are even used.

true...but...to be effective you have to be able to skate or snowboard....and, that's more video than still (lol, been a skater for over 2 decades, follow cam is hard!!!!) Yes you do still see wide still shots --- but --- again, 2 decades...you better damn well have insurance both on your gear and your face if your getting that tight to go fisheye!!!!

and snowbaording....hell, that's a whole different bag of worms...you may go fisheye for halfpipe ---but your also likely to need a deep zoom and the red bull helicopter...lol

 

[278204]

I for one do consider them a sport and a great candidate for wide angle, though I guess f2.8 would be overkill in most cases. Travelling round NZ at the moment and there seems to be a skateboarding park in every town. Yup, gotta choose the angle well or you could end up with broken glass. Rock climbing would also be good for wide angle treatment. Stop and think and all sorts of ideas pop up. Chess indeed!

 

[Nirmala]

I realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)

Well I for one shoot surfing as a hobby, maybe that is not considered a sport? I personally think its one of the most demanding sports you can do. 16mm I think is only the start of going wide enough to shoot this sport. A lot of surf photographers who shoot from the water will shoot fisheye and thats what, anywhere between 8-17mm. I use a 35mm and thats no where near wide enough to get the barrel shots. These days with the improvements in POV cameras unless you are basically right next to the surfer, on top of, behind or any other weird angle that you are crazy enough to put yourself in you are not going to get much notice.

 

[ecka]

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

Nah. How about working on slower prime?
20mm f/4.0 STM pancake would be nice.