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

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

Point 3, In the fast world of landscape workshops, a 14-24 is a liability not an asset, so is the D800.

so is the D800??????? :

Most serious landscapers that i've seen use Canon 5D2/3's over the Nikon D800 because of the disaster of the Nikon live view mode. The D800's min iso is 200 iso for some bizarre reason, which is another Nikon issue. These days, the 5Dsr has more resolution, but I still see a lot of 5D3 users. A well shot and executed 100 iso image with either HDR or layered exposure combined method will have far more detail and lower noise than a pushed shadows Nikon image, regardless of how good the claimed DR is. So for the "drive by" shooters, yes a Nikon is probably better. But for serious work where the absolute best available from the sensor, most seem to choose Canon.

hah

 

[ahsanford]

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

Point 3, In the fast world of landscape workshops, a 14-24 is a liability not an asset, so is the D800.

so is the D800??????? :

Sure, the added resolution was great, but I believe he was harping on the liveview implementation of the D800.

- A

 

[PhotographyFirst]

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

.............

1. Lens filters are becoming very passé. They are a relic from the film era. Besides a number of die-hard holdouts in the UK, most of the world has moved away from filters. New sensors and editing techniques have mostly eliminated their necessity. They are more of a fun-to-have item these days for tinkering and special FX.

2. The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture, great clarity, wide AOV, virtually non-existent vignetting, durability, etc - all make for an incredibly versatile lens. To imply that the 14-24 is some sort of crippled and idiotic design shows a complete lack of understanding of the current landscape market. The lack of filtering options does not matter at all really. The vast majority of the world's top landscape photographers are using this lens. I would also be using this lens, but I decided to go with the smaller Sigma 8-16 equivalent on an APS-C body. For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree. ............

1. Until somebody comes up with a post process that comes close to emulating reflection control a CPL gives you filter solutions will be popular. Same with heavy ND filters to give much longer exposures.

2. The Nikon 14-24 was king of the hill for years because nobody else tried to take the hill. The 11-24 pisses all over the 14-24 and shows it to be the comparatively modest performer it always has been. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king......

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 11-24 is an incredible lens with outstanding image quality. No argument there. Although it is f4 and extremely heavy, which doesn't lend well to versatility. 14mm is already pushing what is looking good for landscapes. I have seen very few 11mm shots that look good in 3:2 ratio. Would work well for cropping to 3:1 or so though.

I am not here to convince you guys you need to change the way you take landscape shots, as the process is more fun than the results. Use whatever makes you have fun. I am just here to give a little direction to those who feel the landscape market hasn't changed drastically in the last 4 years. The professional landscape photographers here in the Pacific Northwest USA have been on the forefront of modern landscape imaging techniques for a few years now. I see the rest of the world following suit as the years go by.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

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

Sad they went with 9 blades on the new 16-35 III.

The old 7 blade design produced the best sun stars of any lens ever made, seriously. This was a golden treat for people shooting landscapes with the version II.

On a side note: I get the feeling some of the folks here need to update their understanding of what landscape photography has become in the last few years.

1. Lens filters are becoming very passé. They are a relic from the film era. Besides a number of die-hard holdouts in the UK, most of the world has moved away from filters. New sensors and editing techniques have mostly eliminated their necessity. They are more of a fun-to-have item these days for tinkering and special FX.

but polarizer filters can still have their use and you simply can't replicate a polarized in PP

3. New-school landscape photography is fast-paced and no longer the old "set up an 8x10 camera and take one shot per day" type of pace. Ocean photography can be very fast paced and require quick thinking and actions to get the best shots. Even taking a sunset shot of some wildflowers with a mountain in the BG can require a frantic process of focus stacking, exposure bracketing, panning, and changing shot locations. It can be just as hectic as what any sports photographer would have to go through in getting shots, keeping an eye on their surroundings, cataloging shots and taking notes in real-time, quality control, and so on.

yes

Actually, for many water shots, you can get away with not using a CPL. I actually showed how to do this in my last round of imaging tutorials for landscape photography. It's a bit of work, but the results actually look very similar, and there are no problems when working with UWA lenses, as you might have with a CPL. The CPL "look" is also becoming a little "old-school". It just isn't natural to our uncovered eyes to see things through a polarizing lens. I've stopped using the CPL in many places I used to use it, as going without it makes for more natural looking images.

Once again, I stress that I am talking about necessities here. a CPL is not a necessity for many people.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

Once again, I stress that I am talking about necessities here. a CPL is not a necessity for many people.

It is for me. I shoot architecture and real estate and need a cpl to control reflections on worktops, stainless steel appliances etc etc.

I have a CPL for unobstructed use on my TS-E17 and will probably get one for the 11-24 too.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

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

2. The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture, great clarity, wide AOV, virtually non-existent vignetting, durability, etc - all make for an incredibly versatile lens. To imply that the 14-24 is some sort of crippled and idiotic design shows a complete lack of understanding of the current landscape market. The lack of filtering options does not matter at all really. The vast majority of the world's top landscape photographers are using this lens. I would also be using this lens, but I decided to go with the smaller Sigma 8-16 equivalent on an APS-C body. For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree.

Fair points, but I did not specifically say that. I said Tamron's decision to walk up to the cliff of not being able to front filter their lens, stare down the cliff long and hard -- and then jump over the cliff anyway -- was idiotic. No one's doubting the 14-24's credentials for landscapes, but that is all it can do. The lack of convenient/fast/low-profile front filtering relegates it to landscape or astro (and possibly concert) work.

But +1 on the role of the D800 -- it was a huge reason why that lens's popularity took off. Landscapers on FF budgets wanted MF resolution and they flocked to Nikon when they went with 36 MP and Canon went with the 5D3's 22 MP. It was the only serviceable UWA zoom Nikon offered, so everywhere you went, you'd see D800/D800E/D810 + 14-24. It was the one lens + body combo Canon could not compete against, at least until the 5DS + 16-35 f/4L IS + 11-24 f/4L showed up.

- A

Actually, there were a few people who were mounting the 14-24 on their Canon cameras long before the D800 came around. The D800, just made it easier to use the lens. I had a 14-24 and a D800E. Beside the crackerjack box internals that felt like cardboard compared to the Canon lenses, it was a fantastic lens. I would miss the f2.8 on my Sigma if I didn't have plans on mounting an ultralight weight barn door tracking device integrated into my tripod. I will be able to astro track manually and not have as much need for f2.8. Foreground shots can take as much time as they need.

The 16-35 IS and 11-24 are great lenses, but I think the landscape astro shooting has become popular enough that f2.8 is actually very appealing. With that said, the new Canon UWA lenses have sold well to Canon users looking to have a nice landscaping lens. The 16-35 F4 may very well level out the playing field against the sales of the 14-24.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

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

Once again, I stress that I am talking about necessities here. a CPL is not a necessity for many people.

It is for me. I shoot architecture and real estate and need a cpl to control reflections on worktops, stainless steel appliances etc etc.

I have a CPL for unobstructed use on my TS-E17 and will probably get one for the 11-24 too.

Landscape photography topic here!

I was only referencing landscape photography, as that is all I know. Of course a CPL is pretty much a required item for architecture.

I do appreciate your knowledge and expertise though. Thanks!

 

[Loswr]

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

Once again, I stress that I am talking about necessities here. a CPL is not a necessity for many people.

It is for me. I shoot architecture and real estate and need a cpl to control reflections on worktops, stainless steel appliances etc etc.

I have a CPL for unobstructed use on my TS-E17 and will probably get one for the 11-24 too.

Landscape photography topic here!

I was only referencing landscape photography, as that is all I know. Of course a CPL is pretty much a required item for architecture.

Yeah, as we all know, there's never anything reflective in a landscape. :

 

[romanr74]

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

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!!!

Which AF-S lenses would you like to use with the 5D IV?

 

[romanr74]

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

A little disappointed in the aperture blades on both lenses but it looks like an improvement over the old 24-105 at least which was just terrible.

How is that?

 

[Luds34]

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.

Our metrics for judging a lens might be skewed??? Maybe?

I agree. Take the 17-40L that I own. It's a very good lens and is capable of capturing some awesome images. Especially stopped down to f/8, f/11, heck f/22 gets some solid sunstars. However if one just read this forum you'd think it's total garbage.

I agree on the Tamron on filters. The Tamron appears to be an awesome lens, checks lots of boxes, not accepting filters is a big one. Same issue ruled out the Tokina 16-28 for me as well.

ahsanford, I don't "need" anything. I'm just a lowly amateur so it's all about "want" and $2k for a single piece of camera equipment is tough to justify. I shoot mostly wide so I appreciated what this lens could possible offer, especially the faster f/2.8. In the same way that $2k is a lot for a lens, the $1k for the upgrade is tough to justify as well. I'd probably own the 16-35 f/4L IS if the opportunity to pick up the 17-40L for $400 didn't occur.

Just for fun, here's a sunstar from the other week. Could have done without the flare, ahhh well.

Sunstar by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

 

[George D.]

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

I am not here to convince you guys you need to change the way you take landscape shots, as the process is more fun than the results. Use whatever makes you have fun. I am just here to give a little direction to those who feel the landscape market hasn't changed drastically in the last 4 years. The professional landscape photographers here in the Pacific Northwest USA have been on the forefront of modern landscape imaging techniques for a few years now. I see the rest of the world following suit as the years go by.

Earlier mentioned Ocean photography can also be yacht racing, surfing and the likes. I'd call this an avant-garde photography area Magnum level but that's another story. Any of the lenses previously mentioned fit in.

 

[nightscape123]

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

A little disappointed in the aperture blades on both lenses but it looks like an improvement over the old 24-105 at least which was just terrible.

How is that?

Well I loved the look of the 7 bladed aperature from the version 2, but I will wait and see on what the 9 looks like. 18 points is just a little much imo.

The old 24-105 had a really ugly star burst imo, worst one of any lens I owned. Hoping it looks better with 10 blades.

 

[ahsanford]

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

A little disappointed in the aperture blades on both lenses but it looks like an improvement over the old 24-105 at least which was just terrible.

How is that?

Well I loved the look of the 7 bladed aperature from the version 2, but I will wait and see on what the 9 looks like. 18 points is just a little much imo.

The old 24-105 had a really ugly star burst imo, worst one of any lens I owned. Hoping it looks better with 10 blades.

I kind of dig the 9 blades on the 16-35 f/4L IS. It's fun to stop down with lights in the frame, but in fairness, I don't do this for a living and I don't know what is believed to be more appealing.

- A

 

[bholliman]

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

A little disappointed in the aperture blades on both lenses but it looks like an improvement over the old 24-105 at least which was just terrible.

How is that?

Well I loved the look of the 7 bladed aperature from the version 2, but I will wait and see on what the 9 looks like. 18 points is just a little much imo.

The old 24-105 had a really ugly star burst imo, worst one of any lens I owned. Hoping it looks better with 10 blades.

I kind of dig the 9 blades on the 16-35 f/4L IS. It's fun to stop down with lights in the frame, but in fairness, I don't do this for a living and I don't know what is believed to be more appealing.

- A

+1 I really like the 18-point stars from the 16-35 f/4L IS!

 

[jeffa4444]

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

.............

1. Lens filters are becoming very passé. They are a relic from the film era. Besides a number of die-hard holdouts in the UK, most of the world has moved away from filters. New sensors and editing techniques have mostly eliminated their necessity. They are more of a fun-to-have item these days for tinkering and special FX.

2. The Nikon 14-24 is without any doubt the best selling enthusiast FF landscape lens right now. The fast aperture, great clarity, wide AOV, virtually non-existent vignetting, durability, etc - all make for an incredibly versatile lens. To imply that the 14-24 is some sort of crippled and idiotic design shows a complete lack of understanding of the current landscape market. The lack of filtering options does not matter at all really. The vast majority of the world's top landscape photographers are using this lens. I would also be using this lens, but I decided to go with the smaller Sigma 8-16 equivalent on an APS-C body. For better or worse depending on who you ask, Nikon's D800 really changed the way the world looked at landscape lenses due to the 14-24 being Nikon's only decent UWA lens. And it still is to some degree. ............

1. Until somebody comes up with a post process that comes close to emulating reflection control a CPL gives you filter solutions will be popular. Same with heavy ND filters to give much longer exposures.

2. The Nikon 14-24 was king of the hill for years because nobody else tried to take the hill. The 11-24 pisses all over the 14-24 and shows it to be the comparatively modest performer it always has been. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king......

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 11-24 is an incredible lens with outstanding image quality. No argument there. Although it is f4 and extremely heavy, which doesn't lend well to versatility. 14mm is already pushing what is looking good for landscapes. I have seen very few 11mm shots that look good in 3:2 ratio. Would work well for cropping to 3:1 or so though.

I am not here to convince you guys you need to change the way you take landscape shots, as the process is more fun than the results. Use whatever makes you have fun. I am just here to give a little direction to those who feel the landscape market hasn't changed drastically in the last 4 years. The professional landscape photographers here in the Pacific Northwest USA have been on the forefront of modern landscape imaging techniques for a few years now. I see the rest of the world following suit as the years go by.

Thankfully filter sales are healthy and the zest for using them unlike your view is still strong globally (I review sales figures monthly of global sales) Sales of nd grads, nds and cpl filters have actually grown. Can you replicate the affects in PS? To a degree and often more time consuming but many beg to differ to your opinion and like that control on location its part of the creative process and most landscape photographers are not run & gun.
There is a style of landscape in the Pacific Northwest USA but then again there are styles in Iceland, Scotland, Dorset in England, The Far East, India, Scandinavia and interesting styles in Russia & Czech Republic.

At the cinema we were told a few years ago film was dead, funny 60% of current big budget films have gone back to film I think that is healthy it gives creatives artistic freedom and that should apply to all the tools in the cabinet.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

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

Again, have to wait for image samples and tests - but based on stat comparisons between the current and yet-to-be-announced varieties, I'm not getting my hopes up on the 24-105 II being much of a bump (if at all) sharpness-wise over the original - although the improved IS system is nice. The 16-35 III, OTOH, should be a notable improvement over version 2 as there appears to be addition of UD element(s).

 

[james75]

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

A little disappointed in the aperture blades on both lenses but it looks like an improvement over the old 24-105 at least which was just terrible.

How is that?

Well I loved the look of the 7 bladed aperature from the version 2, but I will wait and see on what the 9 looks like. 18 points is just a little much imo.

The old 24-105 had a really ugly star burst imo, worst one of any lens I owned. Hoping it looks better with 10 blades.

Couldn't agree more. I don't own the 16-35ii, but always really like the starburst effect it produced. And I agree on the 24-105's starburst being ugly. Once in a while I'd get one I could live with, but for the most part I don't like it.

 

[ahsanford]

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

Again, have to wait for image samples and tests - but based on stat comparisons between the current and yet-to-be-announced varieties, I'm not getting my hopes up on the 24-105 II being much of a bump (if at all) sharpness-wise over the original - although the improved IS system is nice. The 16-35 III, OTOH, should be a notable improvement over version 2 as there appears to be addition of UD element(s).

There is zero chance Canon sh--s the bed on the 16-35 f/2.8L III. They don't update staple pro tools and ask for a healthy markup unless they deliver the goods. It will be formidable.

The one wildcard that takes that lens from where I think it is (sure thing for it's current user base) to 'drop the mic' / homerun would be low-coma for astro. They've just never pulled that off on a fast UWA lens before.

- A

 

[Deleted member 7828]

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

Having owned version 2 of the 16-35 2.8, and as a current owner of the 16-35 f4, expectations are very high. The f4 version (while not perfect) is a SIGNIFICANT jump IQ-wise over the 2.8 version, which I was never satisfied with. I'd expect the III to show even further improvement at 16mm in the corners...

I've been looking forward to this lens for a while now and was thinking about picking one up, but YIKES at the price!