EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Something tells me the 24-15 isn't going to see much change in the IQ- maybe the edges. Hmm....we shall see said the blind man.

You never know. If you are judging that from the length/weight numbers, remember that the 24-70 f/2.8L II got shorter and lighter than the Mk I version -- and that Mk. II lens absolutely mopped the floor with its predecessor.

And as Canon knows that its L lens customers study IQ intensely, they tend not to release a II of something that is worse than what came before. There are exceptions to that rule, but they tend to be more quirky / tradeoff-y than pure IQ letdowns. (e.g. the 24-70L II decision to reverse the in-out zoom direction --> this led to a much more bag/storage/reversable-friendly hood, but it only optimally protected from flare at 24mm).

- A

 

[tr573]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Something tells me the 24-15 isn't going to see much change in the IQ- maybe the edges. Hmm....we shall see said the blind man.

I doubt they would add 120 grams of weight to the thing for zero or near zero improvement. What's the market for such a thing

"Pretty much the same but over 4 ounces heavier and more expensive to boot! Come and get it folks!"

I could see assuming the IQ won't get a boost if they managed to shave the size down significantly - at least you have a point to market it on then.

 

[mrzero]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Are these lenses Nano USM? Will they support the new power zoom box that Canon released with the 80D and the new 18-135 Nano USM?
I would think that with the 5D mkIV getting DPAF and the 1D X mkII already having it they would make all the new L lenses work well with it.

I think the new 24-105 would make perfect sense to be paired with the new power zoom controller, and I hope that Canon had that foresight as well. It would also justify kitting it with the 5DIV (with DPAF), as well as kitting the 24-70.

 

[George D.]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

I've said years ago in this forum this sort of UWA and WA in-one combination zoom offers good optical performance on one end and a convenience on the other. One purchases the 16-35mm f/2.8 for the 16mm end, the 35mm is secondary and lesser performing. If you mostly work on the 35mm end the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the choice. So I'm very curious how Canon have addressed the "poor" performing end. Will this III attempt be a truly stellar lens end-to-end or will we see another compromise.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

I've said years ago in this forum this sort of UWA and WA in-one combination zoom offers good optical performance on one end and a convenience on the other. One purchases the 16-35mm f/2.8 for the 16mm end, the 35mm is secondary and lesser performing. If you mostly work on the 35mm end the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the choice. So I'm very curious how Canon have addressed the "poor" performing end. Will this III attempt be a truly stellar lens end-to-end or will we see another compromise.

Ah. So a 16-35 zoom is just Canon's best autofocusing 16mm prime. Got it.

(I've been similarly calling the 11-24 f/4L as an 11mm prime for the same reason. )

- A

 

[FECHariot]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

I have been holding off on buying an UWA until I upgrade to full frame and the 5D4 looks like it might work well for me. I'll probably hold off until the 6d2 is announced to let the price settle down on the 5D4 and compare the two.

However I just don't see either of these two lenses making my bag, at least for a very long time. In an UWA I want stabilization for video and I want fast aperture for Milkey Way stuff. The Tamron 15-30 gives me both and it gives them to me for about half of what the 16-35/2.8 III for probably cost. The alternative would be for me to get the 16-35/4 and a Samyang 14/2.8.

The 24-105 I bet is going to be great. However it's street price being a kit lens is going to drive the value down significantly over time. I am not going to want to pay full price as an early adopter there. I'll keep using my original 24-105 when I need a zoom and use the existing primes when I don't.

So I am just not excited about the lenses here, at least not as excited as I am about the 5D4.

 

[George D.]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

I've said years ago in this forum this sort of UWA and WA in-one combination zoom offers good optical performance on one end and a convenience on the other. One purchases the 16-35mm f/2.8 for the 16mm end, the 35mm is secondary and lesser performing. If you mostly work on the 35mm end the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the choice. So I'm very curious how Canon have addressed the "poor" performing end. Will this III attempt be a truly stellar lens end-to-end or will we see another compromise.

Ah. So a 16-35 zoom is just Canon's best autofocusing 16mm prime. Got it.

(I've been similarly calling the 11-24 f/4L as an 11mm prime for the same reason. )

- A

Well, if you're happy with the 16-35/2.8L II you can just invest USD 1,500 and get one. Sorry I won't.

BTW Canon weren't happy and upgraded it. Let's see where it improves and we'll take it from there.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

The 16-35mm II had shameful image quality in the corners so I hope this mk3 version is significantly better.

There's plenty worse wide lenses out there. When the 16-35IIL was launched it was the best in it's class bu quite some margin. I think you are exaggerating the corner sharpness issue far more than it really is. Not many people use this lens wide open. For landscape work, stopped down to f8 and the corners are very good. For group shots, no one places people on the far edges, so that's not an issue either. So for most uses, the current model is more than adequate...certainly better performing than many of the photographers who are complaining about it.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

few people actually paid that though for the original 24-105L, not for years and years, you could get split kit, new lenses for half the price for ages now

I always felt the 24-105L was the single most over-priced (at list) and poorest quality of the L lenses.
I tried it a few different times but it stunk (for an L and for the full box price) every single time. Poor T value, poor LoCA, poor edge/corner sharpness at 24mm and some other focal lengths.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Both of these lenses look more like the newer varieties... the 16-35/f2.8 III resembles the 16-35/f4 and the 24-105/f4 II resembles the 24-70/f4

I hope the EF 24-105mm f4L II is better optically & mechanically than the EF 24-70mm f4L that lens is not strong optically and exhibits focus shift.

24-70 f/4 had pretty solid optics, vastly better than the 24-105L, and it's weakest spot was right in the middle at 50mm and most people tend to use zooms more towards either extreme

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

The 16-35mm II had shameful image quality in the corners so I hope this mk3 version is significantly better.

There's plenty worse wide lenses out there. When the 16-35IIL was launched it was the best in it's class bu quite some margin. I think you are exaggerating the corner sharpness issue far more than it really is. Not many people use this lens wide open. For landscape work, stopped down to f8 and the corners are very good. For group shots, no one places people on the far edges, so that's not an issue either. So for most uses, the current model is more than adequate...certainly better performing than many of the photographers who are complaining about it.

+1. If you are shooting landscapes or architecture on a tripod, wide open corner sharpness is an unfair bar to judge any UWA lens with. My 16-35 f/4L IS usually sits around f/8 or so unless I'm informally shooting handheld in lower light (cityscape on walkabout, inside of cathedrals and other structures on vaca, etc.). That's why if you only shoot non-astro landscapes with your 16-35, don't pony up the money for the f/2.8 lens. It's just heavier and more expensive for you.

Astro / sports / event / reportage people obviously would care more about wide open work and would likely pay the money for this new one. That's an easy call.

Who I feel for are the all-around-interest photographers who might feel the need to make the plunge on this new 16-35 f/2.8L III because who knows what they'll shoot next year. The landscaper who always wanted to get into astro someday is a good example. In that light, the f/2.8 version is a degree of future-proofing their lens collection.

- A

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

I want that 16-35! Would be a nice upgrade to my current UWA, the 17-40. I suppose there is zero chance that lens will be affordable. :-[

I Eagerly await some reviews!

If you need f/2.8, then I'm sorry, you need to pony up the bucks or consider the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC (be advised that Tamron has no front filter threads).

- A

Two issues there...the Tamron doesn't have a front filter thread...that's a dead duck to start with. Polarisers and ND filters are a landscaper's regaulr tools to balance sky, sea, reflections and land exposures. Secondly, please don't think that a Tamron lens is any where near the build quality of a Canon L lens. When I started shooting weddings, I literally went through two copies of their 17-35mm Dii lenses. They just fell apart, both of them...one after the other. Then I bought a 17-40L and after three years it never missed a beat. It could handle anything I needed it too and still looked like I'd just bought it. But I missed the f2.8 at the wide end and upgraded to a 16-35IIL for the next season. I sold the 17-40L for slightly more than I paid for it (the prices had gone up) and that would never had happened with Tamron, usually they drop. My current 16-35IIL has been an amazing workhorse over the 9 years I've been using it. I've never once had a client complain about soft corners when using this lens, but I've got lots of "wow..." so maybe our metrics for judging a lens are skewed.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Something tells me the 24-15 isn't going to see much change in the IQ- maybe the edges. Hmm....we shall see said the blind man.

I doubt they would add 120 grams of weight to the thing for zero or near zero improvement. What's the market for such a thing

"Pretty much the same but over 4 ounces heavier and more expensive to boot! Come and get it folks!"

I could see assuming the IQ won't get a boost if they managed to shave the size down significantly - at least you have a point to market it on then.

Maybe the extra weight all comes from the build quality? all those blurbs mentioned were better AF for one and better build quality for both.

Still it would seem a bit weird, granted.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Both of these lenses look more like the newer varieties... the 16-35/f2.8 III resembles the 16-35/f4 and the 24-105/f4 II resembles the 24-70/f4

I hope the EF 24-105mm f4L II is better optically & mechanically than the EF 24-70mm f4L that lens is not strong optically and exhibits focus shift.

24-70 f/4 had pretty solid optics, vastly better than the 24-105L, and it's weakest spot was right in the middle at 50mm and most people tend to use zooms more towards either extreme

Other than the focus shift, that 24-70 f/4L IS is a peach of a lens. Light / sharp / sealed / IS / USM / 0.7x macro with working AF. That last feature is a dagger nothing in else in the standard zoom world can boast, and it turns this lens into a perfect hiking / walkabout standard zoom.

It also tucks under the total length limits of some major ballparks & stadiums, so in some cases you can bring it to the game with you.

I appreciate those who want the 24-105L II to outperform the 24-70 f/4, but as it's apparently a kit lens with the 5D4, I'd keep your feet on the ground. A new 4.5x zoom outperforming a within-the-last-few-years 3x zoom seems either very unlikely or very expensive. We shall see!

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Two issues there...the Tamron doesn't have a front filter thread...that's a dead duck to start with. Polarisers and ND filters are a landscaper's regaulr tools to balance sky, sea, reflections and land exposures.

Preaching to the choir, sir. No filter ring = no sale ever for me. I don't mind fighting through a Lee or Wonderpana outrigger for the occasional ND grad use, but if I can't quickly slap a CPL on it, absolutely forget it.

Other feel differently of course. If you principally will use your UWA zoom for astro, you care a whole lot less about the lack of a filter ring. And some others would say IQ or features are king no matter what the drawbacks are, and if Lee/Wonderpana is needed to use the best lens, then so be it. Good luck to them, I say.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g

The old version EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens is:

Filter Thread: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 111.6mm
Weight: 635g


EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g

24-105L came out at 145,000 Yen
the 16-35 II came out at 230,000 Yen

I'm going to guess $1499 and $2199 for these two bad boys each.

 

[tr573]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Something tells me the 24-15 isn't going to see much change in the IQ- maybe the edges. Hmm....we shall see said the blind man.

I doubt they would add 120 grams of weight to the thing for zero or near zero improvement. What's the market for such a thing

"Pretty much the same but over 4 ounces heavier and more expensive to boot! Come and get it folks!"

I could see assuming the IQ won't get a boost if they managed to shave the size down significantly - at least you have a point to market it on then.

Maybe the extra weight all comes from the build quality? all those blurbs mentioned were better AF for one and better build quality for both.

Still it would seem a bit weird, granted.

that's a lot of build quality

 

[sunnyVan]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

$1500 is a very steep price for a kit lens no matter how good it is

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 127.5mm
Weight: 790g

The old version EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens is:

Filter Thread: 82mm
Size: 88.5 x 111.6mm
Weight: 635g


EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 83.5 x 118 mm
Weight: 795g

24-105L came out at 145,000 Yen
the 16-35 II came out at 230,000 Yen

I'm going to guess $1499 and $2199 for these two bad boys each.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Two issues there...the Tamron doesn't have a front filter thread...that's a dead duck to start with. Polarisers and ND filters are a landscaper's regaulr tools to balance sky, sea, reflections and land exposures.

Preaching to the choir, sir. No filter ring = no sale ever for me. I don't mind fighting through a Lee or Wonderpana outrigger for the occasional ND grad use, but if I can't quickly slap a CPL on it, absolutely forget it.

Other feel differently of course. If you principally will use your UWA zoom for astro, you care a whole lot less about the lack of a filter ring. And some others would say IQ or features are king no matter what the drawbacks are, and if Lee/Wonderpana is needed to use the best lens, then so be it. Good luck to them, I say.

- A

Here here! I think it's one of the big attractions to the Loawa 12mm f2.8 prime. It's that massive angle of view and it can take regular screw in filters. Plus, it's relatively small and light weight.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications

Best guess for me:

24-105L II: $1,199

16-35 f/2.8L III: $1,799

I think working pros / agencies / news outlets / etc. will gobble up that 16-35 as a future workhorse they will use all the time.

It may be less to do with it being better than the II so much as their prior 16-35 II's will be worn to hell from so much use and they just need new lenses, and this will be the current/latest thing Canon gives them.

- A