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

[Bennymiata]

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

I must have been really lucky, but my 16-35 Mk2 is good in the corners.
I've done lots of work for a building magazine with it, and never had any problems with corner sharpness.
I do get some ca, but that's easily fixed in PP.

My 24-105 is poor at 24mm, but otherwise it does a great job especially for events.
I've tried the 24-70's a few times, but I really missed the extra fl of the 25-105.
My 24-105 is now 6 years old, and while it looks a bit worn, it still works perfectly.
However, I would like to update it and I'm really looking forward to the new one coming out.

I'll probably update one of my 5D3s, so I'll get the new 24-105s as a kit.

 

[e_honda]

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).

Yeah, kind if like how, sharpness wise, the new 50mm f1.8 STM isn't much different than the 50mm f1.8 ii that it replaced. I'd expect the same thing here.

But perhaps it will have better AF and less distortion on the wide end. The better IS system is pretty much a given.

 

[Dfunk99]

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

Wow - a 3rd re-make of this lens, & still NO image stabilization!! What's up with that???

 

[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?

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.

The sunstars of the mkII are indeed wonderful. The 9 blades should produce nicer bokeh through rounder apertures I guess.

 

[ahsanford]

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

Wow - a 3rd re-make of this lens, & still NO image stabilization!! What's up with that???

In wide zooms and standard zooms, Canon puts IS on f/4 lenses and doesn't on f/2.8 lenses.

One would presume this is weight driven (it doesn't drive weight *that* much), but it also might be the people who buy $2k UWA zooms haven't asked for IS in large enough numbers. If you're working events/reportage/sports with an UWA zoom (i.e. inconsistently moving subjects), IS doesn't do you as much good as on longer FLs.

I love IS and want it on everything, but Canon must have an understanding of the market that implies (a) they won't get more money for offering it, (b) they won't lose business for not offering it, or (c) their principal user base isn't asking for it. Just speculation on my part, though.

- A

 

[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).

Yeah, kind if like how, sharpness wise, the new 50mm f1.8 STM isn't much different than the 50mm f1.8 ii that it replaced. I'd expect the same thing here.

But perhaps it will have better AF and less distortion on the wide end. The better IS system is pretty much a given.

I'm sorry, does anyone honestly believe this 24-105L II will not improve fairly dramatically? I know it's only $1,099, but this isn't exactly a slightly tweaked kit EF-S 18-55 that Canon keeps churning out -- this is an L lens, and they typically are not updated for a miniscule improvement.

This new 24-105L II won't set any records resolution-wise, but I expect it's glaring/incontrovertible problems (especially on the wide end) will be well corrected.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

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).

Yeah, kind if like how, sharpness wise, the new 50mm f1.8 STM isn't much different than the 50mm f1.8 ii that it replaced. I'd expect the same thing here.

But perhaps it will have better AF and less distortion on the wide end. The better IS system is pretty much a given.

the 50mm STM is a 125 USD lens.... :

 

[x-vision]

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

I'm sorry, does anyone honestly believe this 24-105L II will not improve fairly dramatically? I know it's only $1,099 ...

Heh. I'm expecting a noticeable improvement in IQ vs the outgoing lens ... and a price increase to match.

The MSRP of the 24-70/4L is $999.
I can't imagine that the new 24-105/4L II will be priced at only $100 more - but I've been wrong before 8).

 

[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??????? :

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

- A

yeah but at the end of the day the DR matters a lot more and especially for the sort of super fast work style the OP was talking about

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

how do you look through reflections in PP? how do you remove glare and bring out foliage in PP? even bringing out clouds, etc. you can sort of try to simulate the latter part but not entirely, but.... and barely the next to latter but not really, and not at all the first

 

[Tim686]

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

Does anyone know if the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II will have a macro mode? I am currently using an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens and I like the fact that I can switch to macro without having to switch lenses (even though the macro is a bit limited compared to a dedicated macro lens). Sorry if this was already discussed. Thanks.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

Does anyone know if the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II will have a macro mode? I am currently using an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens and I like the fact that I can switch to macro without having to switch lenses (even though the macro is a bit limited compared to a dedicated macro lens). Sorry if this was already discussed. Thanks.

Highly unlikely, it would compete too much with the 100mm LIS macro.

 

[Loswr]

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

Does anyone know if the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II will have a macro mode? I am currently using an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens and I like the fact that I can switch to macro without having to switch lenses (even though the macro is a bit limited compared to a dedicated macro lens). Sorry if this was already discussed. Thanks.

To quote the all-knowing M8B, signs point to no. Specifically, the lack of a yellow line on the depth scale.

 

[ahsanford]

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

Does anyone know if the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II will have a macro mode? I am currently using an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens and I like the fact that I can switch to macro without having to switch lenses (even though the macro is a bit limited compared to a dedicated macro lens). Sorry if this was already discussed. Thanks.

Max magnification in the 24-105L II rumored spec list would pretty clearly imply that a 'macro mode' like the 24-70 f/4L IS is not going to happen.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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

Does anyone know if the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II will have a macro mode? I am currently using an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens and I like the fact that I can switch to macro without having to switch lenses (even though the macro is a bit limited compared to a dedicated macro lens). Sorry if this was already discussed. Thanks.

To quote the all-knowing M8B, signs point to no. Specifically, the lack of a yellow line on the depth scale.

Neuro, unless there are new pictures, that line wouldn't have been visible in the digicame pics that were originally posted. Ref my prior post -- we don't know there is no macro from the pics we've seen so far. But I think we know from the reported max mag specs: 0.24x max mag = no macro mode.

- A

 

[TommyLee]

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

so...?
...? no blue goo? on 16-35 or 24-105?...


but for sure
i need good coma ..... and good edges....
on either lens...

we need a test ....like 10 mins after ordering starts...ha!

I feel I will go for the 24-105...sell the old one or give it and 5d3 to grandson

 

[TommyLee]

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

do we get blue goo with either of these?

 

[Zv]

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

I'm sorry, does anyone honestly believe this 24-105L II will not improve fairly dramatically? I know it's only $1,099 ...

Heh. I'm expecting a noticeable improvement in IQ vs the outgoing lens ... and a price increase to match.

The MSRP of the 24-70/4L is $999.
I can't imagine that the new 24-105/4L II will be priced at only $100 more - but I've been wrong before 8).

Comparing old and new version

Old had 18 elements in 13 groups (3 aspherical)
New has 17 elements in 12 groups (4 aspherical)

Old has 8 aperture blades
New has 10

Old has max magnification 0.23x
New has 0.24x

Old weighs 670g
New weighs 795g

New one also has better coatings and better IS

So, physically quite different therefore I'd expect there to be a difference in optical performance. How different is the question.

I doubt Canon would go to the trouble of making a new L lens for it to have the exact same performance as the old one. (Except 50 STM, because I know someone will throw that in my face)

 

[ahsanford]

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

do we get blue goo with either of these?

We do not know. It was not listed on either new lenses' spec sheet, but I don't think the BR stuff was listed as a bullet point on the 35L II spec sheet when it was leaked last summer. I don't recall hearing anything about it until the announcement (someone please correct me if I'm off on this -- I did a brief August 2015 Google search on this and the old leaks over that time didn't have it).

So it may surface in the announcement. I give it a very small likelihood it will be on the 16-35 f/2.8L III as it's a pricier / wider max aperture lens, but I'd be altogether stunned if it was on a $1,099 24-105 f/4L II.

- A

 

[ashmadux]

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

I hope so. I bought mine for 1200 years ago. its was great on my xsi, so-so on my t2i, non-impressive on my 7d, unreliable on my 6d, got fixed in singapore, and now banned from important shoots on my 5d3. It stayed home today.

Now with the fixed lemon refurb 35 f/2 IS, its really not leaving the house until it's fixed. Ill bring it to the canon booth at the photo expo show- and pray.