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

[YuengLinger]

We don't need revolutionary. Just a 16-35mm f/2.8 with the same or better IQ as the 24-70mm f/2.8 II.

Why would such a lens lose the nice filter thread of the current model?

And why would anybody satisfied with f/4 begrudge those of us who prefer f/2.8 at any freakin' ISO?

How is this a controversy?

 

[pwp]

We don't need revolutionary. Just a 16-35mm f/2.8 with the same or better IQ as the 24-70mm f/2.8 II.

Why would such a lens lose the nice filter thread of the current model?

And why would anybody satisfied with f/4 begrudge those of us who prefer f/2.8 at any freakin' ISO?

How is this a controversy?

+1 Thanks Yueng Linger. Neatly put...

For the final couple of years before the 24-70 f/2.8II finally replaced the MkI, having given up on the MkI (five copies) I used a terrific EF 24-105 f/4is. This lens opened my eyes to the undeniable usefulness of IS on shorter lenses, but it also made clear the argument in favor of f/2.8 over f/4 for my particular needs and the sort of projects/commissioned work that I do. There are no rights or wrongs. Just what suits best.

-pw

 

[TeT]

We don't need revolutionary. Just a 16-35mm f/2.8 with the same or better IQ as the 24-70mm f/2.8 II.

Why would such a lens lose the nice filter thread of the current model?

And why would anybody satisfied with f/4 begrudge those of us who prefer f/2.8 at any freakin' ISO?

How is this a controversy?

I think the IQ will be in line with the 24 70 II... and the 2.8 PPL will rejoice. and some of the 4 PPL will go back to 2.8 if it has the corners that I think it may have...

I don't think there is any controversy at all... everybody should have a UWA available to fit their needs by years end..

 

[pwp]

Maybe you should take the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC for a test drive?

Indeed. From early reviews the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC looks fantastic but that bulbous front element means no CPL. Darn...
But it seems that all of a sudden there is high quality, totally viable choice in wide zooms. Good times!

-pw

 

[ahsanford]

Maybe you should take the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC for a test drive?

Indeed. From early reviews the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC looks fantastic but that bulbous front element means no CPL. Darn...
But it seems that all of a sudden there is high quality, totally viable choice in wide zooms. Good times!

-pw

+1

It used to be a choice of the budget 17-40 f/4L or the 'overpriced-for-landscape-apertures' 16-35 F/2.8L II, and neither really resolved in the corners too well.

Now we're (relatively) flooded with 3 impressively performing UWA and Ultra-UWA options. It's a huge lovefest on ultrawide in the last 12 months. Love it.

- A

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Oh gosh. If this pans out (preferably with IS for video and longish handheld exposure purposes - I know I'm asking for a lot here) along with the rumored and patented 24-70 f/2.8L IS AND a new 35L prime AND a new 50 f/1.2L .... I will possibly explode with happiness.

I'm serious. It won't be pretty. Little chunks of me all over the wall, stuck to the ceiling, etc. My last words will be "Oh... My... " *BOOM!* (me exploding)

Or I could be massively exaggerating to convey how much I hope this rumor will bear fruit. One or the other. Your choice.

 

[Memdroid]

My 16-35mm 2.8 II got destroyed a couple of weeks ago and I had a CPS loan 16-35mm F4 IS and used it until yesterday when my insurance got me a replacement. Although the F4 IS version is a nice sharp lens but it needs a lot of light and I REALLY did miss the extra stop on low light events. Doubling the ISO is not the way to go if you want to soak up light. Pricing is not an issue, if this rumor is true and the successor gets an overhaul similar to the mk I & II versions of the 24-70mm, I'll choose this over any UWA F4 lens Canon offers.
The Tamron seems nice enough on the IQ front, the rest does not impress me much and the lack of CPS-like support is a no go for me by default.

 

[Bennymiata]

I use 16-35 2.8II for professional real estate shoots, including for magazines, events and general landscapes etc., and none of my customers have ever complained about soft corners, and I don't really see them either.
Sure, I use Lightroom and it easily fixes most faults.

Unless this new version is absolutely amazing, I'll just keep using my 2 year old lens for a few more years.

I've often found that once the lens has been in production for a couple of years, the later batches often perform a lot better than the first or second batches.
I bought mine, new, about 2 years ago, so any teething bugs had been worked out, or I'm lucky enough to get a good copy.