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

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.

Take 'regular' with a grain of salt -- those filters are huge, though do-able (100 or 105 with their nutty holder).

But moving up to slot filters (ND grads and such) on this will likely require something specialized / non-standard like Wonderpana -- not for front thread reasons, but for filter size reasons given the FOV. Pretty sure Lee's SW150 craps out vignetting-wise around 14mm.

- A

 

[bholliman]

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

I'm really looking forward to the reviews for the 24-105 II. I've always felt the zoom range of the 24-70 lenses was too short, so almost always carry either my 100L or 135L along with my 24-70 for reach. I owned a 24-105 I several years ago but was unhappy with its sharpness and distortion at the wide end. With a good 24-105, I can finally have a single lens solution for many outings. I fully expect the new version to be excellent, as all other recent lenses released by Canon have been, and for one to reside on my 5DsR within a few months.

 

[bholliman]

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

I agree that the 24-70 f/4L IS is a really nice lens. Its a little soft in the 40-55mm focal range, but sharp at both extremes where I tend to use mine the most anyway. It's certainly not as good as the excellent 24-70 f/2.8 II, but it's currently selling for 1/2 the price and is roughly 1/2 the size. Overall, it's a very nice compact, general purpose lens.

That said, mine will probably be up for sale soon. I'm hoping for a 24-105 f/4 II that equals or exceeds the 24-70 f/4 in IQ, and I think Canon is certainly capable of doing that. I single lens for travel that will handle everything from landscapes to portraits with very good to excellent IQ will be awesome.

 

[romanr74]

Re: EF 16

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.

The corner quality of the mkII keeps me from using it for the architecture/landscape work I primarily bought it for. The 17mm TS-E (at least unshifted) and the 16-35 f/4 IS beat the s... out of it. And at least my copy has a corner sharpness issue stopped down. I agree you don't need 2.8 for architecture/landscape work, but it is more versatile with 2.8 to be used as a walk-around-lens as well...

 

[JonAustin]

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

I'm really looking forward to the reviews for the 24-105 II. I've always felt the zoom range of the 24-70 lenses was too short, so almost always carry either my 100L or 135L along with my 24-70 for reach. I owned a 24-105 I several years ago but was unhappy with its sharpness and distortion at the wide end. With a good 24-105, I can finally have a single lens solution for many outings. I fully expect the new version to be excellent, as all other recent lenses released by Canon have been, and for one to reside on my 5DsR within a few months.

+1

Now that I've decided to pass on the 5D Mark IV (and possibly pick up a 2nd 5D III at closeout), the 24-105L II is getting all my attention. The 24-105L is my most used and (arguably) lowest quality lens. Bought my first copy retail ($1099) in 2005 during my crop days, and while never really blown away with its quality, its zoom creep really irritated me.

I replaced it in 2013 with a new one split out of a kit; not really any better on either the image quality or zoom creep fronts. Now I wish I had kept the original and saved that money (although it cost me less than $200 to upgrade). I'll be watching closely for real-world reviews of the 24-105 II, and looking to buy one new out of someone's kit.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Not true, the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and 16-35 f2.8 both beat the shit out of the Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkII. The Canon did best its sibling prime 14mm f2.8 but that was another complete dog too. The 14mm f2.8 MkII put the 16-35 f2.8 MkII back in its place as the most expensive and poorest performing ultra wide angle out there.

One of the most amazing turnarounds from Canon lenses has been their wide and ultrawide lenses. The 8-15 fisheye was the first shots across all others bows, the TS-E 24 MkII and TS-E17 cemented the notion that they had turned it around (Nikon are still years behind with their mere and unreleased as yet 19PC-E). The 16-35 f4 IS is an unbelievably good lens and great value, the 35 f2 IS is loved by all who use it, the 11-24 broke all the molds and the 35 f1.4 MkII has set yet another benchmark.

The various 16-35 f2.8's have all been weak performers and the sooner a MkIII is released we will see how bad they have all been by their pathetic resale value.

 

[ahsanford]

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

One of the most amazing turnarounds from Canon lenses has been their wide and ultrawide lenses.

+1

Last 5 years, I can't speak for the UWA primes or T/S lenses, but UWA zooms have come tremendously forward for Canon. The 16-35 f/4L IS is the great landscaper's lens we've been waiting forever for. Then the 11-24 f/4L came out and scratched the U-UWA itch. Now it's time to complete the triumvirate with the event/sports f/2.8 lens and Canon can start focusing their lens designers elsewhere.

...like on a 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM.

Soon.

Please.

- A

 

[FramerMCB]

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

Pricing Prognostications:
16-35mm f2.8L Mk III - somewhere between $1999.99USD and $2199.99USD

24-105mm f4.0L Mk II - somewhere between $1199.99USD and $1399.99USD

Performance Prognostications:
16-35mm f2.8L Mk III - better in every respect over it's predecessor, especially in corner performance. Better CA control, etc. Better micro-contrast, etc.

24-105mm f4.0L Mk II - better build, better IQ (approaching and/or exceeding the 24-70mm f4.0L), much better performance at the wide end (24-35mm).

I think the development and release of these 2 lenses may also spark or put renewed interest in Canon's 5DsR and 5Ds if the IQ/resolution is on par with the 16-35mm f4.0L.

We shall see.

A few have mentioned the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC lens. It is a stellar performer based on all the reviews with accompanying photos I have read. The one major drawback is the lack of front filter threading...however, Fotodiox's Wonderpana system works well with it based on Dustin Abbott's review. And is an option. And while it is very true that Canon's hold their resale value much better than 3-party lenses. I'm not sure why one would sell this type of lens after buying and owning it. (Other than to get a newer/better version.)

It'll be interesting to see over the next few years what technological developments there will be to keep making improvements to lenses...perhaps mostly these developments will be in manufacturing techniques and materials?

 

[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.

Not true, the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and 16-35 f2.8 both beat the S___ out of the Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkII. The Canon did best its sibling prime 14mm f2.8 but that was another complete dog too. The 14mm f2.8 MkII put the 16-35 f2.8 MkII back in its place as the most expensive and poorest performing ultra wide angle out there.

One of the most amazing turnarounds from Canon lenses has been their wide and ultrawide lenses. The 8-15 fisheye was the first shots across all others bows, the TS-E 24 MkII and TS-E17 cemented the notion that they had turned it around (Nikon are still years behind with their mere and unreleased as yet 19PC-E). The 16-35 f4 IS is an unbelievably good lens and great value, the 35 f2 IS is loved by all who use it, the 11-24 broke all the molds and the 35 f1.4 MkII has set yet another benchmark.

The various 16-35 f2.8's have all been weak performers and the sooner a MkIII is released we will see how bad they have all been by their pathetic resale value.

Firstly, the TS-e 24L and TS-e 17L were released before the 8-15L fish. A long time before. Secondly, the 16-35IIL was released before the Nikon 14-24, which is a completely different lens class to the 16-35mm. Nikon already had a 17-35 f2.8 variant and the 14-24 f2.8 didn't replace it. I know many Nikon wedding photographers who rushed out...bought one and then sold it soon after, preferring the 17-35 for venue shots and group shots, which says a lot considering how old the 17-35mm f2.8 lens is. The 14-24 is in the same genre as the Sigma 12-24 and the new Canon 11-24L. It's a completely different type of lens and it shouldn't be compared. A 16-35 is way way way more versatile than a 14-24 any day. A 14-24mm lens is an evolution of the 14mm architecture lens, which is why they are generally so heavily corrected for straight lines. Which is why it's SO good for shoot brick walls. But conversely, they are rubbish for anything with circles...like faces. Filters...weight, elongated faces, bulbous front element to name just a few. So...yes sir...yes true.

Yes Canon have come a long way with their wide lenses. The original 16-35L wasn't great at all...but that was a pre-digital lens. Canon now have a lot of great wide lenses, (I have copies of most of them) to Nikon's 1 great wide lens, the 14-24. Their 16-35 f4 VR looks pretty bad in the corners...worse than the 16-35IIL. Before that, you had to get a lens that was really old, 1st gen USM, the 17-35mm f2.8 IF ED, which was last used by Noah in the ark.

 

[ahsanford]

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

A few have mentioned the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC lens. It is a stellar performer based on all the reviews with accompanying photos I have read. The one major drawback is the lack of front filter threading...however, Fotodiox's Wonderpana system works well with it based on Dustin Abbott's review. And is an option. And while it is very true that Canon's hold their resale value much better than 3-party lenses. I'm not sure why one would sell this type of lens after buying and owning it. (Other than to get a newer/better version.)

We've spoken of the Tamron a fair amount on this thread, I thought. Fine lens.

But threading in a CPL or an ND in seconds without needing to leave a large outrigger on the lens (or in your bag) is a huge, huge advantage for the Canon. As are first-party AF routines and build quality. Some people who have the money will absolutely trade up from the Tamron to the Canon once it's out.

I see landscapers and astro folks reaching for the Tamron as those two arenas don't rely on AF or require quick changeouts of filters. Everyone else who needs an an all-weather / front-filterable event / sports / reportage f/2.8 UWA zoom lens will reach for the Canon.

I cannot state enough how idiotic a design decision it was to not allow front filtering with the Tamron. Even if they had gone with a comically wide integral hood/filter ring thing like with the Zeiss 15mm prime (or even lowered their FL range to 16-35, 17-35, etc.) they would have sold a boatload more lenses, IMHO.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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

Firstly, the TS-e 24L and TS-e 17L were released before the 8-15L fish. A log time before. Secondly, the 16-35IIL was released before the Nikon 14-24, which is a completely different lens class to the 16-35mm. Nikon already had a 16-35 f2.8 variant and the 14-24 f2.8 didn't replace it. I know many Nikon wedding photographers who rushed out...bought one and then sold it soon after, preferring the 17-35 for venue shots and group shots, which says a lot considering how old the 17-35mm f2.8 lens is. The 14-24 is in the same genre as the Sigma 12-24 and the new Canon 11-24L. It's a completely different type of lens and it shouldn't be compared. A 16-35 is way way way more versatile than a 14-24 any day. A 14-24mm lens is an evolution of the 14mm architecture lens, which is why they are generally so heavily corrected for straight lines. Which is why it's SO good for shoot brick walls. But conversely, they are rubbish for anything with circles...like faces. Filters...weight, elongated faces, bulbous front element to name just a few. So...yes sir...yes true.

+1. I thoroughly applaud Canon for not chasing the 14-24 f/2.8 dragon. It's like a Ferrari and sexy and mythical and fabled, until you have to use one to go buy groceries.

In comparison, Canon now (as they have in other parts of the portfolio) have more and better answers for photographers. One ideal zoom for landscapes, one ideal zoom for architecture, and one ideal event/sports zoom. I love what they've done with the place.

The only question is if the astro camp will be shut out from their dream of wide + fast + coma free. Canon has only ever been able to do that in a lens that isn't quite wide or fast enough for them (24-70 f/2.8L II). I think this 16-35 f/2.8L III may let them down, but a future 24 f/1.4L III with the BR gunk may do the trick for them.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Not true, the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and 16-35 f2.8 both beat the S___ out of the Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkII. The Canon did best its sibling prime 14mm f2.8 but that was another complete dog too. The 14mm f2.8 MkII put the 16-35 f2.8 MkII back in its place as the most expensive and poorest performing ultra wide angle out there.

One of the most amazing turnarounds from Canon lenses has been their wide and ultrawide lenses. The 8-15 fisheye was the first shots across all others bows, the TS-E 24 MkII and TS-E17 cemented the notion that they had turned it around (Nikon are still years behind with their mere and unreleased as yet 19PC-E). The 16-35 f4 IS is an unbelievably good lens and great value, the 35 f2 IS is loved by all who use it, the 11-24 broke all the molds and the 35 f1.4 MkII has set yet another benchmark.

The various 16-35 f2.8's have all been weak performers and the sooner a MkIII is released we will see how bad they have all been by their pathetic resale value.

Firstly, the TS-e 24L and TS-e 17L were released before the 8-15L fish. A long time before. Secondly, the 16-35IIL was released before the Nikon 14-24, which is a completely different lens class to the 16-35mm. Nikon already had a 17-35 f2.8 variant and the 14-24 f2.8 didn't replace it. I know many Nikon wedding photographers who rushed out...bought one and then sold it soon after, preferring the 17-35 for venue shots and group shots, which says a lot considering how old the 17-35mm f2.8 lens is. The 14-24 is in the same genre as the Sigma 12-24 and the new Canon 11-24L. It's a completely different type of lens and it shouldn't be compared. A 16-35 is way way way more versatile than a 14-24 any day. A 14-24mm lens is an evolution of the 14mm architecture lens, which is why they are generally so heavily corrected for straight lines. Which is why it's SO good for shoot brick walls. But conversely, they are rubbish for anything with circles...like faces. Filters...weight, elongated faces, bulbous front element to name just a few. So...yes sir...yes true.

Yes Canon have come a long way with their wide lenses. The original 16-35L wasn't great at all...but that was a pre-digital lens. Canon now have a lot of great wide lenses, (I have copies of most of them) to Nikon's 1 great wide lens, the 14-24. Their 16-35 f4 VR looks pretty bad in the corners...worse than the 16-35IIL. Before that, you had to get a lens that was really old, 1st gen USM, the 17-35mm f2.8 IF ED, which was last used by Noah in the ark.

My bad on the release sequence, senility is creeping in.

However I double down on the 16-35 f2.8 MkII being a dog from day one. The fact that the 14-24 is a 'different design' of lens doesn't mean it didn't still beat the shit out if the Canon dog and as they share focal length and aperture I suggest you saying they shouldn't be compared is ridiculous. It's interesting because when you do comparisons now between the 14-24 and the 11-24 the Canon knocks the shit out of the previous all holy ultra wide angle zoom.

For perspective I own the TS-E 17 and the 11-24, I owned the 16-35 f2.8 MkI since it came out and didn't get the MkII because I tested two against my MkI and found all three were dogs. I got a 16-35 f4 IS when it came out and it was the first Canon ultrawide zoom worth a damn for anything off center. I sold it and got the 11-24 soon after that came out and whilst it is an unmatched lens in many regards, it wipes the floor with the Nikon 14-24 (which really isn't very usable at f2.8) even at 11mm vs 14mm, it isn't as good as that bargain 16-35 f4 IS where they cross over.

 

[jeffa4444]

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

I've tested 9 in total EF 24-70mm f4L lenses on MTF and using the new CIPA high resolution chart. All of them were "very average lenses" weakest at 50mm, all had image shift and the only real advantage over the EF 24-105mm f4L was better chromatic aberration control. Admittedly this is not one of the more expensive L lenses and price plays its part. I don't agree given advancements in optical design that Canon cannot make a EF 24-105mm f4L II a superior lens I think they can and if it's up to 50% more than the current lens then it should be better to justify the cost.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

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.

That's my thought as well. Center sharpness on the current version is already fairly decent - it's corner sharpness (particularly at 24) where it's weak. Extend center IQ further out to the corners, reduce distortion at 24 and you've got a winner.

I'd LOVE to see IQ improved to that of the 24-70 2.8 but something tells me that that's not a realistic expectation to have, and I think those expecting that kind of improvement may be disappointed...then again, what do I know.

 

[monsieur_elegante]

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

A few have mentioned the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC lens. It is a stellar performer based on all the reviews with accompanying photos I have read. The one major drawback is the lack of front filter threading...however, Fotodiox's Wonderpana system works well with it based on Dustin Abbott's review. And is an option. And while it is very true that Canon's hold their resale value much better than 3-party lenses. I'm not sure why one would sell this type of lens after buying and owning it. (Other than to get a newer/better version.)

We've spoken of the Tamron a fair amount on this thread, I thought. Fine lens.

But threading in a CPL or an ND in seconds without needing to leave a large outrigger on the lens (or in your bag) is a huge, huge advantage for the Canon. As are first-party AF routines and build quality. Some people who have the money will absolutely trade up from the Tamron to the Canon once it's out.

I see landscapers and astro folks reaching for the Tamron as those two arenas don't rely on AF or require quick changeouts of filters. Everyone else who needs an an all-weather / front-filterable event / sports / reportage f/2.8 UWA zoom lens will reach for the Canon.

I cannot state enough how idiotic a design decision it was to not allow front filtering with the Tamron. Even if they had gone with a comically wide integral hood/filter ring thing like with the Zeiss 15mm prime (or even lowered their FL range to 16-35, 17-35, etc.) they would have sold a boatload more lenses, IMHO.

- A

+1

This is exactly the case for me. Was contemplating buying the Tamron recently because of the great reviews regarding its image quality (especially w.r.t. low coma for astrophotography), image stabilization, and f/2.8 aperture.

Rented it for 10 days to try it out, and immediately decided not to buy it. The IQ, suitability for astrophotography, and IS were all as great as the reviews said -- but because of its lack of front filtering, I found myself reaching for my wide primes most of the time even for landscape, simply because it's significantly less of a hassle. Its hefty size & weight + lack of front filter thread add up to significantly diminish this lens' versatility IMO. I ultimately concluded that if I were to buy this lens, I would really only use it for milky way photography and the very rare occasions where I absolutely need the 15mm...not exactly the best use of money.

 

[douglaurent]

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

Shooting good quality 4K video with the 5D4 most likely means - looking at the 30MP - the crop factor is around 1.7x, so these new lenses do have equivalent 27-59mm and 40-178mm focal lengths.

Which brings us to the extremely stupid fact that in the 5D4 - unlike ANY other manufacturer - will still not allow to attach Canon crop sensor lenses!

This means shooting even moderate wide angle 4K videos on the 5D4 with a Canon lens would require an investment of 3000 bucks. Luckily there are some options like the Sigma 8-16 or Tokina 11-20 that will help out.

For 4K video on the 5D4, the sharp wide open Sigma 16-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8 will be the much better alternatives than the new 16-35/2.8 and 24-105/4.

Canon, it is time to open your full frame EF mount to AF-S lenses, or people will buy third party products!!! The limitation is extremely annoying!!!

 

[applecider]

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

Does anyone make an EF-s to EF lens converter esp one with electronics?

 

[weixing]

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

Hi,

Does anyone make an EF-s to EF lens converter esp one with electronics?

Why you need this for?? EF-S image circle won't cover the whole FF sensor.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

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

Hi,

Does anyone make an EF-s to EF lens converter esp one with electronics?

Why you need this for?? EF-S image circle won't cover the whole FF sensor.

Have a nice day.

The reason was just mentioned above. Because when using video on Canon FF cameras, the image gets cropped to APS-C size. Therefore there are many convenient EF-S lenses we can't use because the EF-S lenses cannot be mounted on EF bodies. (Talking about 4K, Canon 1DC, 1DXII, and 5D IV likely)

-As for adapter: It cannot be physically achieved unless you lose infinity focus. You can actually use any Macro extention tube as an adapter and put EF-S lenses on EF bodies. But you lose infinity and get a closer MMD.

-The two mounts are identical on the cameras. The only difference is that EF-S lenses have a little 2mm-ish protrusion inside the camera body, which risks hitting the larger FF mirror. This protrusion was made because it allows canon to get closer to the sensor with the glass, therefore make better lenses, not just a safety measurement as commonly known. Many EF-S lenses have actual lens elements in that protrusion.

-The lenses that do not have glass in the protrusion can be modified (simply cut the protruded plastic) to fit on EF cameras. Not something I encourage doing.

-Third Party lenses (Sigma/tokina/Tamron) lenses that are designed for APS-C Canon have an EF mount, not an EF-S mount (as the EF-S mount is patented). So you can mount say an APS-C Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on a 5D without issues, or a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, etc. These are very helpful lenses when shooting 4K on Canon 1DC/1Dx/5DIV.

 

[George D.]

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

Sorry to say all these UWA-WA zooms are entirely not my game. I mean 8-15, 11-24. Remember we're in a stills-video market now and everybody is selling "multipurpose" stuff to cover the likes of both. I have the EF 15/2.8 and I'm very happy with and envious of the 17mm TSE. One dime advice, please consider your exact needs before spending hard-earned cash.