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

[romanr74]

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

I very much like the current design of the L lenses - very clean...
These have gained quite some weight over their predecessors...
Cannot wait to see the MFT chart of the 16-35

 

[docsmith]

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

EF 16-35 f/2.8 III will be awfully tempting for starscapes if it has reasonable coma. I have and love the 16-35 f/4 but I do not really need IS.

Hey docsmith

What's your opinion on IS for shorter focal lengths? When does one want IS and when is it sufficient to work with a faster shutterspeed?

At least with my copy and level of caffeination, I have consistently good images @ 16 mm and 1/4" shutterspeeds, mixed results at 1/2" and occasionally a hand held shot up to 1". So it definitely works, but may be more of a 2-3 stop advantage.

The question is, what does that give you? I've hand held a few shots of small waterfalls, but I usually have a tripod when shooting waterfalls. I've also used it for "blue hour" walk around shots around a city and it did reasonably well at that. Although, when doing so with street photography, that shutterspeed range has given a moderate amount of blur to any moving object, which, of course, works in some instances but not others. I have yet to use it for low light landscapes, again, I usually have my tripod. But I did buy it with the intent of being a lighter travel combination with the 70-300 L. So I expect there will be times when I am without my tripod and I want a blue hour landscape.

So image stabilization is still useful, but I do find IS to be much more useful for longer focal lengths. With wider focal lengths I am just finding if I want longer exposures, I usually need/have a tripod.

 

[tyger11]

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

24-105 weighs quite a bit more than the old version; this indicates a significant change. Newest optical design and coatings, newest IS, etc. Hopefully another diaphragm blade or two. That would then compete nicely with the Sigma, though the price differential is going to get interesting. Right now, the Canon costs $100 more than the currently-superior Sigma. They don't want to price it TOO far out there, as the Sigma is pretty damned good from all reports I've read. Not that Canon realizes there are other manufacturers out there.

 

[LordofTackle]

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

I am really excited about the new 16-35/2.8. I hope that it has MUCH better corner performance than the previous version...
And less CA would also be nice

 

[Camerajah]

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

Blue goo for everyone!

I forgot about that-blue goo stuff,it would be like blue icing on the cake

 

[Wedding Shooter]

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

16-35 III is great news. The hole on my bank account will not be that much fun.
Estimated cost for the lens???

 

[sunnyVan]

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

I think when the f4 version came out it was selling for$1199. Usually f2.8 costs almost twice as much so the price tag is likely $2200-2400.

16-35 III is great news. The hole on my bank account will not be that much fun.
Estimated cost for the lens???

 

[infared]

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

I think when the f4 version came out it was selling for$1199. Usually f2.8 costs almost twice as much so the price tag is likely $2200-2400.

16-35 III is great news. The hole on my bank account will not be that much fun.
Estimated cost for the lens???

Yes...I agree with your price guess...or maybe higher?.... I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II to buy the 16-35mm f/4 IS. GREAT LENS! I am definitely not paying the premium for this new offering....but I bet its (finally) a beauty. Canon is finally getting its $hit together with wide angle glass. ....but we is paying for it!!!!

 

[Tom W]

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

It'll be interesting to see what optical improvements are included with these two new versions. I also wonder if Canon will improve the copy to copy consistency that seems to be apparent in their newest lenses, based on observations at Lensrentals.com.

Both are staple items in many camera bags.

 

[sunnyVan]

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

I am definitely not buying this new 2.8 version too. I am sure it's going to have stellar IQ but I am sure very happy with the f4 version. If I ever need 2.8 I'd rather get a cheap manual prime such as samyang.

I think when the f4 version came out it was selling for$1199. Usually f2.8 costs almost twice as much so the price tag is likely $2200-2400.

16-35 III is great news. The hole on my bank account will not be that much fun.
Estimated cost for the lens???

Yes...I agree with your price guess...or maybe higher?.... I sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II to buy the 16-35mm f/4 IS. GREAT LENS! I am definitely not paying the premium for this new offering....but I bet its (finally) a beauty. Canon is finally getting its $hit together with wide angle glass. ....but we is paying for it!!!!

 

[nightscape123]

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

How long did it take for the original 24-105 to come down in price? I mean the old one MSRP is like $1200 but I don't think anyone would buy it for more than $600. Did that happen quickly or did it take a few years?

I am also interested to see if they will change the number of aperture blades on the 24-105. The old one has a terrible starburst.

I'm also curious what canon will price the new 16-35. It has a lot of competition now. Between all the sigma art lenses, the excellent tamron 15-30, and canon's own 16-35 f/4 it will be hard to justify $2500 for a lens when you can get such excellent quality for $1000.

 

[Loswr]

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

I am definitely not buying this new 2.8 version too. I am sure it's going to have stellar IQ but I am sure very happy with the f4 version. If I ever need 2.8 I'd rather get a cheap manual prime such as samyang.

Nor am I going to buy the 16-35/2.8 III. I sold my 16-35/2.8 II intending, like you, to get the 16-35/4 IS...but I opted for the TS-E 17 instead, since much of my UWA shooting is architecture.

Still, looking forward to seeing how these lenses perform. If the IQ of the 24-105/4 IS II approaches that of the 24-70/2.8 II (which I suspect won't be the case, but I have hope), that lens would be very tempting.

 

[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!

 

[photojoern.de]

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

I am definitely not buying this new 2.8 version too. I am sure it's going to have stellar IQ but I am sure very happy with the f4 version. If I ever need 2.8 I'd rather get a cheap manual prime such as samyang.

I owned both lenses in the current version (16-35mm f 2.8 II and the 24-105 L IS) and I haven´t been happy with both of them, for the same reason: low sharpness outside the center.
I currently own the 16-35 L f4 IS and the 24-70mm f2.8 L and they are sharp across the entire picture.
So the question is: given that the image quality improved significantly, who will buy these lenses:
- the 16-35mm f2.8 III favoured over the f4 IS probably only for night and i.e. star photography. Low light in general is better with the f4 IS because you can hand hold up to 1/10th of a second. Not too many applications where one whould really benefit from f2.8 vs f4 in this focal range.
- the 24-105: hopefully a better kit lens than the predecessor and nice to have added flexibility vs the 24-70. Cheaper probably also vs. the f2.8 24-70mm L version. And it has a four stop IS. So if this new Mark II lens performs in image quality, it could be a great "always on lense".
Let´s see what they do. And let´s not forget that with increase pixel density, flaws in the lens are more and more the bottleneck.

 

[Maximilian]

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

Nice to see they'll become reality soon ;D

What is the extra little 'lump' on the side of the 24-105? Right beside the 24-105 mm label? It appears the switches for AF/MF and stabilizer on/off are on the left side of the photo just like on the current version.

Zoom lock?

Hoping that is lens lock plus marco on / off just as the 24-70 F/4L

100% this is a zoom lock.
I don't believe in a dedicated macro functionality like the 24-70/4L has, even though it would be really nice.
If it was so there wouldn't be any reason for the 24-70/4L anymore (except for the size/weight).
If I was wrong here I was really happy

Here the same: macro functionality would be gread. It will not replace the 2.8 100 macro but make a good "single lens solution" for a variety of applications - landscape (+ some closeups of flowers, stones), cityscapes (+ some closeups of e.g. building ornaments, etc.).

The current model has a MFD of 45 cm and a maximum 0.23x magnification. The 24-70/4L has a 0.7x magnification.
I see no reason why this new lens shouldn't get a HIS image stabilizer and a magnification of at least 0.5x.
Except for causing IQ loss in normal non-macro use.

 

[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.

 

[Loswr]

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

- the 16-35mm f2.8 III favoured over the f4 IS probably only for night and i.e. star photography. Low light in general is better with the f4 IS because you can hand hold up to 1/10th of a second. Not too many applications where one whould really benefit from f2.8 vs f4 in this focal range.

Events. Weddings and receptions. Sports. Lots of applications for UWA shooting in lower light where subjects are moving and thus an extra stop of light is a big benefit but IS is completely useless.

 

[jeffa4444]

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

The EF 16-35mm f4L is one of Canon best zooms and measurably far superior than the EF 24-70mm f4L. The present EF 24-105 f4L for me has been a real work-horse but on the 5DS it has been wanting on occasions. If the new lens is remotely as good as the EF 16-35mm f4L my credit card will immediately see daylight!

 

[sunnyVan]

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

If the new 24-105 approaches 24-70 2.8ii in IQ, it would present a big dilemma : should I still keep the 2.8? Sometimes having too many choices is painful. If 24-105ii is decent wide open in the 24-50 and at 100mm, then I'm absolutely buying it.

I am definitely not buying this new 2.8 version too. I am sure it's going to have stellar IQ but I am sure very happy with the f4 version. If I ever need 2.8 I'd rather get a cheap manual prime such as samyang.

Nor am I going to buy the 16-35/2.8 III. I sold my 16-35/2.8 II intending, like you, to get the 16-35/4 IS...but I opted for the TS-E 17 instead, since much of my UWA shooting is architecture.

Still, looking forward to seeing how these lenses perform. If the IQ of the 24-105/4 IS II approaches that of the 24-70/2.8 II (which I suspect won't be the case, but I have hope), that lens would be very tempting.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

If the new 24-105 approaches 24-70 2.8ii in IQ, it would present a big dilemma : should I still keep the 2.8? Sometimes having too many choices is painful. If 24-105ii is decent wide open in the 24-50 and at 100mm, then I'm absolutely buying it.

I am definitely not buying this new 2.8 version too. I am sure it's going to have stellar IQ but I am sure very happy with the f4 version. If I ever need 2.8 I'd rather get a cheap manual prime such as samyang.

Nor am I going to buy the 16-35/2.8 III. I sold my 16-35/2.8 II intending, like you, to get the 16-35/4 IS...but I opted for the TS-E 17 instead, since much of my UWA shooting is architecture.

Still, looking forward to seeing how these lenses perform. If the IQ of the 24-105/4 IS II approaches that of the 24-70/2.8 II (which I suspect won't be the case, but I have hope), that lens would be very tempting.

The current 24-105 LIS is weakest at 24mm. Strong distortion, vignetting, and lower optical resolution. But the huge focal range is really nice and it makes a great 2 lens line up with the 100-400 LIS II. I'd hope that the new mkII lens offers 24-70mm f2.8 II L performance along with the higher number of aperture blades for nicer sunbursts.

I'm a big fan of the current 16-35IIL. As a wedding photographer...I need the f2.8 aperture more than I need an f4 with an IS system (regardless of how good it is). The current mk I lens has poor CA and isn't as great as other lenses in terms of wide open resolution. But it still offers the best sun stars of any lens I know. Better than the 16-35 f4 LIS. So i'm hoping Canon have kept the same number of aperture blades as the mkI