EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II Replacement [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

We reported previously that the next “L” lens from Canon would be a prime. We don’t know the focal length, but the 35mm f/1.4 is the likeliest candidate for replacement.</p>
<p>Canon hasn’t released an f/2.8 zoom since the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, but that could be changing some time in the next year. We’re told An f/2.8 replacement for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II is likely and that the focal length could change slightly, something like an EF 15-35 f/2.8L was suggested.</p>
<p>If you look at the lineage of the current lens, it has changed focal lengths a couple of times. The first in the line was the EF 20-35 f/2.8L and then the EF 17-35 f/2.8L and most recently two version of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L</p>
<p>Event photographers still crave the fastest lens possible for the job, and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II could use a performance refresh.</p>
<p>I don’t expect such a lens to arrive any time soon, as the manufacturing demands of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II and EF 11-24 f/4L probably won’t be quelled for quite some time yet.</p>

 

[Maximilian]

Interesting.

But let's wait until the [CR2] comes around the corner - with or without IS

 

[pwp]

The relatively recent 24-70 f/2.8II missed out on IS so I'd be surprised to see it on a 16-35 f/2.8II replacement due to cost issues. I'd welcome this lens with or without IS. The current 16-35 f/2.8II is a modest performer, though some photographers are fortunate enough to have great copies. 15mm at the wide end would also be welcome, just so long as screw-on filters were still an option (82mm?)

-pw

 

[niels123]

Zeiss has a 15mm f/2.8 prime. It uses 95mm filters so I think a 15-35 f/2.8 will not be easily made with "only" 82mm filters. I also think that a 15-35 will me much more expensive than a 16-35.

 

[pwp]

I also think that a 15-35 will me much more expensive than a 16-35.

Based on recent EF releases, you can be pretty sure of that.

-pw

 

[tron]

If the front element remains flat and the coma is non-existent it will be my dream astro lens...

 

[Random Orbits]

Zeiss has a 15mm f/2.8 prime. It uses 95mm filters so I think a 15-35 f/2.8 will not be easily made with "only" 82mm filters. I also think that a 15-35 will me much more expensive than a 16-35.

Maybe Canon will follow what Tamron did and opt for a curved front element?

Must be some sort of tradeoff in design for flat vs curved...

I hope it's not curved -- it's one of the advantages of the 16-35 II.

 

[gsealy]

The relatively recent 24-70 f/2.8II missed out on IS so I'd be surprised to see it on a 16-35 f/2.8II replacement due to cost issues. I'd welcome this lens with or without IS. The current 16-35 f/2.8II is a modest performer, though some photographers are fortunate enough to have great copies. 15mm at the wide end would also be welcome, just so long as screw-on filters were still an option (82mm?)

-pw

My 16-35 f2.8 II works very well for me. But I use it for landscape purposes so its shortcomings are not as obvious perhaps.

 

[ahsanford]

A few considerations to this rumor:

• Canon's landscape (16-35 F/4L IS) and archtitecture / crazy ultrawide needs (11-24 F/4L) have just been addressed very, very soundly. So if Canon is going to make another UWA zoom, the principal missing tool is a fast zoom for events and sports (possibly also astro). That's the only UWA FF zoom I'd see them make in the next 5-7 years.
  
  
• I don't expect there to be IS on this lens. Why no IS? Other than for longer FL zooms that demand it, Canon seems to save IS for f/4 zooms like the 24-70 F/4L IS, 24-105 F/4L IS or 16-35 F/4L IS.
  
  
  
• If it's a specialist event/sports lens (and I think it will be), not having a front filter ring is not necessarily a crippling blow like it would be for landscapers. That said, I don't see Canon being so foolish as to chase 1-2mm wider FL at the cost of a bulbous front element that eliminates the front filter ring or forces a massive 95mm Zeiss-like filter ring. I see this lens having a front filter ring -- sports guys or boozy wedding reception folks might want to protect their front element with more than just a short UWA hood...
  
  
• Canon's competitive landscape has just been made more difficult / potentially less profitable with the release of Tamron's impressive 15-30 F/2.8 VC. It lacks a red ring, weathersealing, and a front-filter ring (expect Canon to offer all of those with its next ultrawide zoom), but it seems to have everything else.
  
  Consider Tamron's performance (yes, resolution is only one metric, but...):
  http://www.lenstip.com/432.4-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Rozdzielczo%C5%9B%C4%87.html
  
  vs. what Canon offers now in a similar f/2.8 lens:
  http://www.lenstip.com/198.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html
  

Therefore, my money is overwhelmingly on Canon to offer a 16-35 F/2.8L III (i.e. without IS) and with a front filter ring. It will resolve much better in the corners like the 16-35 F/4L IS does.

But given the Tamron and two very powerful tools Canon has recently offered in this FL range, this lens had better deliver. At these focal lengths, the 'Great Canon f/2.8 zoom' is no longer the best show in town, so it needs to wow to sell.

- A

 

[mycanonphotos]

Don't care about IS in this Config. It needs to be sharp across the board at 2.8 at most of it's focal lengths. Done deal..order me one the day it's announced. O ya..and if it has a large curved front element..you can buy the Tokina or the Tamron instead...

 

[TeT]

17 35 f2 No IS; there is a lens that will coexist with the 16 35 4 L

 

[ahsanford]

17 35 f2 No IS; there is a lens that will coexist with the 16 35 4 L

Dream land. Sigma would be much more likely put one out before Canon does.

Such a lens does not exist today in FF, so even if Canon did it, they would ask for something astronomical for one, something north of $3k I'm sure. And it would be as big like a 70-200 and weigh a ton, I'd imagine.

I don't mean to naysay -- I love the idea -- but I think such a lens would be highly improbable from Canon.

- A

 

[TeT]

17 35 f2 No IS; there is a lens that will coexist with the 16 35 4 L

Dream land. Sigma would be much more likely put one out before Canon does.

Such a lens does not exist today in FF, so even if Canon did it, they would ask for something astronomical for one, something north of $3k I'm sure. And it would be as big like a 70-200 and weigh a ton, I'd imagine.

I don't mean to naysay -- I love the idea -- but I think such a lens would be highly improbable from Canon.

- A

probably yes to Sigma doing it first.

It's just hard to envision the 16 35 2.8 III as a must have product, with the very good 16 35 4 L in play, it fills the fast wide niche or astro crowd, put IS on it and it is a must have but bounces the 4 L to the sideline

Make it faster (2.0) + a touch narrower with only existing technological improvements is the only thing that makes sense... It is its own thing again...

we shall see...

 

[ahsanford]

It's just hard to envision the 16 35 2.8 III as a must have product, with the very good 16 35 4 L in play, it fills the fast wide niche or astro crowd, put IS on it and it is a must have but bounces the 4 L to the sideline

Make it faster (2.0) + a touch narrower with only existing technological improvements is the only thing that makes sense... It is its own thing again...

we shall see...

Many many many event & sports photographers skipped the stellar 16-35 f/4L IS altogether for one solitary reason: it was an f/4 lens. They need speed and that's that; using the 16-35 f/4L IS lens and doubling the ISO to net the same shutter speed as their 16-35 f/2.8L II -- even if that f/4 lens is sharper -- does not play with them.

The next time you watch a sporting event where there are a mob of photographers around the coach/players at the end of the game, look at the glass they use. I overwhelmingly see the 14-24 f/2.8 Nikon and 16-35 f/2.8 Canon.

Because of other recent releases, Canon's only logical play in a new UWA zoom is:

(a) to offer a new 16-35 f/2.8 zoom
(b) to offer a straight clone of the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 lens (but at the cost of a front filter ring)
(c) to do something nutty and make a focal length duckbill-platypus-of-a-lens like a 16-70 f/4L IS lens as a do-it-all walkaround for price-constrained 6D owners or simplicity-loving folks who just want one lens on the camera.

My opinion:

(a) is needed
(b) is not as needed since the 11-24 came out (though event people will still want the extra speed of f/2.8 )
(c) is a tiny market, as a 4x-plus zoom multiplier (esp. on that end of the FL range) will likely punish IQ quite a bit

If I was a betting man, and was offered 3 votes on what Canon's UWA next FF zoom is, I'd put all three chips on (a).

- A

 

[TeT]

It's just hard to envision the 16 35 2.8 III as a must have product, with the very good 16 35 4 L in play, it fills the fast wide niche or astro crowd, put IS on it and it is a must have but bounces the 4 L to the sideline

Make it faster (2.0) + a touch narrower with only existing technological improvements is the only thing that makes sense... It is its own thing again...

we shall see...

Many many many event & sports photographers skipped the stellar 16-35 f/4L IS altogether for one solitary reason: it was an f/4 lens. They need speed and that's that; using the 16-35 f/4L IS lens and doubling the ISO to net the same shutter speed as their 16-35 f/2.8L II -- even if that f/4 lens is sharper -- does not play with them.

The next time you watch a sporting event where there are a mob of photographers around the coach/players at the end of the game, look at the glass they use. I overwhelmingly see the 14-24 f/2.8 Nikon and 16-35 f/2.8 Canon.

Because of other recent releases, Canon's only logical play in a new UWA zoom is:

(a) to offer a new 16-35 f/2.8 zoom
(b) to offer a straight clone of the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 lens (but at the cost of a front filter ring)
(c) to do something nutty and make a focal length duckbill-platypus-of-a-lens like a 16-70 f/4L IS lens as a do-it-all walkaround for price-constrained 6D owners or simplicity-loving folks who just want one lens on the camera.

My opinion:

(a) is needed
(b) is not as needed since the 11-24 came out (though event people will still want the extra speed of f/2.8 )
(c) is a tiny market, as a 4x-plus zoom multiplier (esp. on that end of the FL range) will likely punish IQ quite a bit

If I was a betting man, and was offered 3 votes on what Canon's UWA next FF zoom is, I'd put all three chips on (a).

- A

I fit into the just want one lens category.. which really means 1 at a time since I have 3 that I keep (16-35 2.8/24 70 4/70 300 L)

I agree that it will be the 16 35 2.8 III that we probably will see; its just not as big of a deal as it would have been 2 years ago because of all the other new offerings in UWA.

The opportunity is there to make something special with a UWA F/2... (could that be smaller than the 11 24?)

I think everyone who reads this forum would be floored if Canon did that...

 

[ahsanford]

I don't know how many of you have actually seen the 11-24/f4L, but take it from someone that has, it isn't the most transportable lens. It is huge. I can't see it going in anyone's backpack.

Ultra-ultra-widers are not exactly the most reasonable folks, and the 11-24 f/4L is just as unreasonable as they are.

I think for every moment of headache from bag-packing frustrations and having sore back from lugging that monster, they have a hundred thoughts of "Wow, this thing is a freaking awesome."

Ultra-ultra-wideness is a sickness, and that lens is the cure for it. I'm not one to question it, but I sure as hell won't buy one.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

The opportunity is there to make something special with a UWA F/2... (could that be smaller than the 11 24?)

Smaller? Diameter wise probably, but length and weight would be a lot greater with the f/2, I think. Sigma made that crop f/1.8 sort-of-standard zoom and though it had a smaller diameter, it was about as long and heavy as a full-frame 24-70 f/2.8.

Some optical physicist with a lot of time on this forum would probably be able to chunk out some calculations for you.

- A

 

[pwp]

It's just hard to envision the 16 35 2.8 III as a must have product, with the very good 16 35 4 L in play...

Many many many event & sports photographers skipped the stellar 16-35 f/4L IS altogether for one solitary reason: it was an f/4 lens.

It's an f/4...that's my reason for holding off too. I've come very close to pulling the trigger on the brilliant 16-35 f/4is but for my needs and shooting style it's that darn maximum aperture. f/4 with good IS will be perfect for most static subjects, but the value of f/2.8 cannot be underestimated when you're in the business of stopping action, and for achieving a particular look that starts slipping away when you click to f/4. That may sound fussy but it's real.

What I'd ask from a 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII is a comparable level of upgrade that we saw in the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII over the MkI. To be able to shoot at f/2.8 and get more than just the very centre of the image sharp. The 24-70 f/2.8II just blew my socks off with it's prime matching IQ. If a 16-35 f/2.8III could have a similar upgrade, then my 16-35II would be off to eBay in a heartbeat.

-pw

 

[ahsanford]

It's just hard to envision the 16 35 2.8 III as a must have product, with the very good 16 35 4 L in play...

Many many many event & sports photographers skipped the stellar 16-35 f/4L IS altogether for one solitary reason: it was an f/4 lens.

It's an f/4...that's my reason for holding off too. I've come very close to pulling the trigger on the brilliant 16-35 f/4is but for my needs and shooting style it's that darn maximum aperture. f/4 with good IS will be perfect for most static subjects, but the value of f/2.8 cannot be underestimated when you're in the business of stopping action, and for achieving a particular look that starts slipping away when you click to f/4. That may sound fussy but it's real.
-pw

I once posited that it's more convenient weight & size-wise to get more IS performance than it is to get one stop quicker with glass. I joked that in 10 years, we'd all be shooting tiny & ultralight f/4 or f/5.6 lenses with 7-8 stops of IS more likely than we'd ever see an f/2 zoom of any kind.

But another possibility is that high ISO performance gets good enough that folks will take the output of a great f/4 lens at ISO 6400 over a decent f/2.8 lens at ISO 3200, i.e. bump the iso on the f/4 setup to get the same shutter speed and rely on the sensor and post to manage the noise.

But I recognize that is (to some extent) heresy to event shooters, concert shooters, etc. #justsayin

- A

 

[PhotographyFirst]

I don't see the image quality going up very much for a new 16-35L III f2.8 lens. They might add IS and call it good. The best 16-35 f2.8 lens is the Sony Zeiss version and even that is just a small amount better than the Canon 16-35L II. Maybe they will give the version III some magical new glass elements that make such a design function much better wide open at 16mm, who knows...

It seems such a lens can't take screw on filters, have little vignetting, low coma, low distortion, and also be sharp to the corners wide open all at the same time. The current 16-35L II handles all of those factors pretty well without being complete ass on any one metric. I've used the 16-35L II for many landscapes and always felt it was great as an all-around lens. It also produces some of the best Sun bursts of just about any lens ever made which is also a bonus.