EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
- Thread starter rushfan21122
- Start date
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
I've got the 16-35 f2.8ii and do a lot of night time videoing with it (fireworks, night lighting and such) I'm still trying to figure out if the f4 with IS is going to be better for me than the f2.8iii. IS will help hand held video obviously but will I lose some of the lighting depth... :/
I've got the 16-35 f2.8ii and do a lot of night time videoing with it (fireworks, night lighting and such) I'm still trying to figure out if the f4 with IS is going to be better for me than the f2.8iii. IS will help hand held video obviously but will I lose some of the lighting depth... :/
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
I've been using the 24-105mm F/4 L IS as a video lens for ages and it's just a workhorse of a lens. This lens has been a de-facto standard for video shooters on the 5D series era and on the C100/C300 as an all rounder ''doc'' lens.
Mine lived on my 5DII and 60D (great range for both sensor sizes from wide to tele) and the lens alone carried my video production company, it's specifically ultimately exceptional in video Image Stabilisation unlike any other Canon lens, but sadly one time the tripod fell off and the hit was right to the extended lens barrel. It was stuck/fixed, seemed like something easy to fix, but I found out it was officially dead and repair exceeds the cost of a new one. So it lives now as room decoration.
Since I moved from Full Frame video and lost the 24-105mm. I found an alternative in the absolutely brilliant Canon 18-135mm IS. It's only APS-C (so only 60D, C100, C300, not 5D, which I sold and it got outdated in the video world).
And I found that little gem to be better in every single way including image quality except for build quality/feel and constant f/4 aperture.
But the 24-105mm wasn't ACTUALLY a constant aperture lens, it got darker whilst zooming during video, not much different from the variable 18-135mm oddly. So that was a strange downside with the lens, I thought I was the only one with a bad copy but it turns out this was documented and reported by all video shooters.
The 18-135mm has a larger range and wider for APS-C (which is the standard for video/cinema), less distortion at 24mm, similar/identical sharpness, same overall image, slightly better image stabilisation, silent AF and IS and Iris, and smaller/lighter weight and cost.
The 24-105mm has Full frame coverage shall you need it, constant f/4, and L series build quality, for a very low price point.
I'd ditch the 18-135mm and get this new lens if it has a few things. Most importantly, image quality. The 24-105mm and 18-135mm are great lenses and do very good 2mp 1080p video, but when you pop on a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and look at the image both set at f/4, it just hits you how much POP and cleaner colour and 3d dimension feel these primes have. This aesthetic is in the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS and 24-70mm F/2.8. One might think that at at 1080p HD the resolution increase in the lens wouldn't show up but it does, significantly.
So for me it needs to be:
1- Sharper. Higher resolution. Just get more of that POP it lacks compared to primes and other L glass.
2- Less Distortion at wide shots. It's hideous. In photography you can correct it but in video, not so much.
3- Doesn't ramp aperture/transmission while zooming from 24mm to 105mm like a normal constant should.
I've been using the 24-105mm F/4 L IS as a video lens for ages and it's just a workhorse of a lens. This lens has been a de-facto standard for video shooters on the 5D series era and on the C100/C300 as an all rounder ''doc'' lens.
Mine lived on my 5DII and 60D (great range for both sensor sizes from wide to tele) and the lens alone carried my video production company, it's specifically ultimately exceptional in video Image Stabilisation unlike any other Canon lens, but sadly one time the tripod fell off and the hit was right to the extended lens barrel. It was stuck/fixed, seemed like something easy to fix, but I found out it was officially dead and repair exceeds the cost of a new one. So it lives now as room decoration.
Since I moved from Full Frame video and lost the 24-105mm. I found an alternative in the absolutely brilliant Canon 18-135mm IS. It's only APS-C (so only 60D, C100, C300, not 5D, which I sold and it got outdated in the video world).
And I found that little gem to be better in every single way including image quality except for build quality/feel and constant f/4 aperture.
But the 24-105mm wasn't ACTUALLY a constant aperture lens, it got darker whilst zooming during video, not much different from the variable 18-135mm oddly. So that was a strange downside with the lens, I thought I was the only one with a bad copy but it turns out this was documented and reported by all video shooters.
The 18-135mm has a larger range and wider for APS-C (which is the standard for video/cinema), less distortion at 24mm, similar/identical sharpness, same overall image, slightly better image stabilisation, silent AF and IS and Iris, and smaller/lighter weight and cost.
The 24-105mm has Full frame coverage shall you need it, constant f/4, and L series build quality, for a very low price point.
I'd ditch the 18-135mm and get this new lens if it has a few things. Most importantly, image quality. The 24-105mm and 18-135mm are great lenses and do very good 2mp 1080p video, but when you pop on a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and look at the image both set at f/4, it just hits you how much POP and cleaner colour and 3d dimension feel these primes have. This aesthetic is in the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS and 24-70mm F/2.8. One might think that at at 1080p HD the resolution increase in the lens wouldn't show up but it does, significantly.
So for me it needs to be:
1- Sharper. Higher resolution. Just get more of that POP it lacks compared to primes and other L glass.
2- Less Distortion at wide shots. It's hideous. In photography you can correct it but in video, not so much.
3- Doesn't ramp aperture/transmission while zooming from 24mm to 105mm like a normal constant should.
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
Hard to tell for sure, but since the 18-135mm actually has the words "Nano USM" written on it, and these ones don't, I'm guessing they have the good ol' regular USM. Not that that's a bad thing, although I was really impressed with the focusing speed on that 18-135mm, and it would have made sense to find it at least on the new 24-105mm.
roxics said:
Hard to tell for sure, but since the 18-135mm actually has the words "Nano USM" written on it, and these ones don't, I'm guessing they have the good ol' regular USM. Not that that's a bad thing, although I was really impressed with the focusing speed on that 18-135mm, and it would have made sense to find it at least on the new 24-105mm.
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
I see the 24-105 barrel extends... strike 1 for me... That's the one thing i hate most about the lens... 16-35,17-40,70-200 all zooms internally, why cant this?
I see the 24-105 barrel extends... strike 1 for me... That's the one thing i hate most about the lens... 16-35,17-40,70-200 all zooms internally, why cant this?
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
Almost certainly true USM focusing, not nanoUSM.
NorbR said:
Almost certainly true USM focusing, not nanoUSM.
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
It's not every year that we see 2 major lens refreshes like this. I'm more excited for the reviews/tests of these lenses than the 5DIV!
Fingers crossed that the 16-35iii has good coma! Ill trade IS for good coma (since it's UWA).
It's not every year that we see 2 major lens refreshes like this. I'm more excited for the reviews/tests of these lenses than the 5DIV!
Fingers crossed that the 16-35iii has good coma! Ill trade IS for good coma (since it's UWA).
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
The UWA lenses do extend with zooming, they just do so with an inner barrel behind the filter thread (which is why those lenses require a front filter to complete the weather sealing). If you look at the zoom mechanism, they're actually most extended at the ends of the zoom, and most retracted in the middle (the lens has to get longer as it gets more retrofocal).
As to why the 24-xxx zooms can't zoom internally, the answer is that they could be made that way, but would you really want them to always be the extended length (or slightly longer)? Personally, I'm glad that Canon designs them with a shorter collapsed length. For example, compare the non-extending 70-200/4 IS with the extending 70-300L – the latter has a 50% longer FL, but is shorter when retracted. That is why the 70-300L is my preferred travel telezoom, it fits vertically in a camera bag slot, rather than needing to lay flat and take up two lens compartments.
awinphoto said:
The UWA lenses do extend with zooming, they just do so with an inner barrel behind the filter thread (which is why those lenses require a front filter to complete the weather sealing). If you look at the zoom mechanism, they're actually most extended at the ends of the zoom, and most retracted in the middle (the lens has to get longer as it gets more retrofocal).
As to why the 24-xxx zooms can't zoom internally, the answer is that they could be made that way, but would you really want them to always be the extended length (or slightly longer)? Personally, I'm glad that Canon designs them with a shorter collapsed length. For example, compare the non-extending 70-200/4 IS with the extending 70-300L – the latter has a 50% longer FL, but is shorter when retracted. That is why the 70-300L is my preferred travel telezoom, it fits vertically in a camera bag slot, rather than needing to lay flat and take up two lens compartments.
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
Fair enough, however i've always found the extended barrel tends to be one of the weakest points on the lens, as a working professional photographer... i've had to send my lens in before because while walking from location to location at a shoot, the barrel self extended and then an unfortunate knock screwed up the zoom ring so it could not fully zoom in or out and had to be repaired. At the very least, i hope they put a zoom lock on this lens.
neuroanatomist said:awinphoto said:
The UWA lenses do extend with zooming, they just do so with an inner barrel behind the filter thread (which is why those lenses require a front filter to complete the weather sealing). If you look at the zoom mechanism, they're actually most extended at the ends of the zoom, and most retracted in the middle (the lens has to get longer as it gets more retrofocal).
As to why the 24-xxx zooms can't zoom internally, the answer is that they could be made that way, but would you really want them to always be the extended length (or slightly longer)? Personally, I'm glad that Canon designs them with a shorter collapsed length. For example, compare the non-extending 70-200/4 IS with the extending 70-300L – the latter has a 50% longer FL, but is shorter when retracted. That is why the 70-300L is my preferred travel telezoom, it fits vertically in a camera bag slot, rather than needing to lay flat and take up two lens compartments.
Fair enough, however i've always found the extended barrel tends to be one of the weakest points on the lens, as a working professional photographer... i've had to send my lens in before because while walking from location to location at a shoot, the barrel self extended and then an unfortunate knock screwed up the zoom ring so it could not fully zoom in or out and had to be repaired. At the very least, i hope they put a zoom lock on this lens.
Upvote
0
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.
The 16-35mm II had shameful image quality in the corners so I hope this mk3 version is significantly better.
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
The leaked images seem to indicate it will have a zoom lock. The 70-300L has one, it's a bit annoying becuase the reverse-mounted hood blocks the zoom lock, but that won't be the case with the shallow hood for the 24-105L II.
awinphoto said:
The leaked images seem to indicate it will have a zoom lock. The 70-300L has one, it's a bit annoying becuase the reverse-mounted hood blocks the zoom lock, but that won't be the case with the shallow hood for the 24-105L II.
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
Not sure about that. The 24-70 f/4L IS macro indicators are visible in three places:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The distance scale
[*]The lock/macro switch
[*]The long end of the zoom (you 'go past' 70 on the zoom ring to use it after you flip the switch)
[/list]
...and we only have two similar views of that 24-105L II. There's clearly a lock switch on the right that might have the macro option, but we cannot see the macro end of the focusing range in the distance scale and we can't see the 105mm end of the zoom ring.
So I'm calling macro mode on the 24-105L II as still possible from what we can see, but fairly unlikely.
- A
Meatcurry said:
Not sure about that. The 24-70 f/4L IS macro indicators are visible in three places:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The distance scale
[*]The lock/macro switch
[*]The long end of the zoom (you 'go past' 70 on the zoom ring to use it after you flip the switch)
[/list]
...and we only have two similar views of that 24-105L II. There's clearly a lock switch on the right that might have the macro option, but we cannot see the macro end of the focusing range in the distance scale and we can't see the 105mm end of the zoom ring.
So I'm calling macro mode on the 24-105L II as still possible from what we can see, but fairly unlikely.
- A
Attachments
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
+1. That's been my experience as well. I believe IS belongs on everything as I tend to shoot handheld without flash and often climb up to ISO 6400 or so. Unless my subjects are moving, IS lets me walk the ISO back down to earth, which is huge.
Agree you get less bang for the IS buck with wider lenses, but it's still useful.
- A
docsmith said:Sabaki said:docsmith said:
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.
+1. That's been my experience as well. I believe IS belongs on everything as I tend to shoot handheld without flash and often climb up to ISO 6400 or so. Unless my subjects are moving, IS lets me walk the ISO back down to earth, which is huge.
Agree you get less bang for the IS buck with wider lenses, but it's still useful.
- A
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
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).
But if you don't need f/2.8 -- if you aren't shooting events / sports / astro / reportage -- what you waiting for? the 16-35 f/4L IS is a stellar, stellar lens and it won't set you back the (guessing) $1,600-1,800 that the new f/2.8 will.
- A
Luds34 said:
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).
But if you don't need f/2.8 -- if you aren't shooting events / sports / astro / reportage -- what you waiting for? the 16-35 f/4L IS is a stellar, stellar lens and it won't set you back the (guessing) $1,600-1,800 that the new f/2.8 will.
- A
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
I hear you, but sorry, all EF (and EF-S and EF-M, right?) Canon standard zooms do this. Good wides don't, and some good longer zooms don't. But with standard zooms you are SOL, and there's a reason for that.
Standard zooms externally zoom 99% of the time because having a 'short configuration' (usually on the wide end of the FL range) lets you put it in a smaller bag than if they didn't. These lenses tend to get left on the body much longer than other lenses, so bag fit is a key consideration.
Also, the percentage of knowledgeable photogs that understand/value why internally zooming lenses are worth the trouble has got to be dwarfed by the number of general consumers who don't. To them, a smaller footprint for packing is far more attractive than the downside of a pathway for dust/dirt/fluid ingress.
- A
awinphoto said:
I hear you, but sorry, all EF (and EF-S and EF-M, right?) Canon standard zooms do this. Good wides don't, and some good longer zooms don't. But with standard zooms you are SOL, and there's a reason for that.
Standard zooms externally zoom 99% of the time because having a 'short configuration' (usually on the wide end of the FL range) lets you put it in a smaller bag than if they didn't. These lenses tend to get left on the body much longer than other lenses, so bag fit is a key consideration.
Also, the percentage of knowledgeable photogs that understand/value why internally zooming lenses are worth the trouble has got to be dwarfed by the number of general consumers who don't. To them, a smaller footprint for packing is far more attractive than the downside of a pathway for dust/dirt/fluid ingress.
- A
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
Thank you for this write up as it helps us video neophytes.
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Thank you for this write up as it helps us video neophytes.
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
Good writeup, Neuro, you beat me to it.
awinphoto, I'm hard pressed to think of a standard zoom that doesn't externally zoom besides the Sigma 24-35 f/2, which doesn't cover much FL range. Are there any others for the EF mount? Off the top of my head (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Canon) I cannot think of any.
- A
awinphoto said:
Good writeup, Neuro, you beat me to it.
awinphoto, I'm hard pressed to think of a standard zoom that doesn't externally zoom besides the Sigma 24-35 f/2, which doesn't cover much FL range. Are there any others for the EF mount? Off the top of my head (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Canon) I cannot think of any.
- A
Upvote
0
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Images & Specifications
I don't know what else the right 'boss' for a switch in that photo could be other than a zoom lock. It's either that or a zoom + macro mode lock like with the 24-70 f/4L IS, but in either case, you get a zoom lock.
Also, do we think we'll we get a CPL access window on the hood for this one like with the 100-400L II?
- A
neuroanatomist said:
I don't know what else the right 'boss' for a switch in that photo could be other than a zoom lock. It's either that or a zoom + macro mode lock like with the 24-70 f/4L IS, but in either case, you get a zoom lock.
Also, do we think we'll we get a CPL access window on the hood for this one like with the 100-400L II?
- A
Upvote
0
Similar threads
