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

[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.

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.

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.

 

[nightscape123]

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

Pretty sure every landscape photographer in existence carries a cpl. It's just silly to suggest otherwise. There were multiple filter systems designed just for the 14-24 but they are bulky hard to set up and can cause flare and reelection issues. But canon is fixing that problem. When you are hiking 40 miles into the wilderness carrying a 2 pound filter system with giant glass filters is unreasonable. This is why I plan on selling my tamron 15-30 if the canon has well controlled coma.

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. All that's left are the mtf curves which are the most important part.

Edit: what does ef12 and ef25 mean?

 

[privatebydesign]

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

Pretty sure every landscape photographer in existence carries a cpl. It's just silly to suggest otherwise. There were multiple filter systems designed just for the 14-24 but they are bulky hard to set up and can cause flare and reelection issues. But canon is fixing that problem. When you are hiking 40 miles into the wilderness carrying a 2 pound filter system with giant glass filters is unreasonable. This is why I plan on selling my tamron 15-30 if the canon has well controlled coma.

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. All that's left are the mtf curves which are the most important part.

Edit: what does ef12 and ef25 mean?

Extension tubes. They always list reproduction ratio with the two extension tubes if the lens can use them.

 

[George D.]

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.

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.

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.

What has happened to photography in general is that with the advent of Digital SLR almost everything has been photographed again and again. That's why we get drones, "extreme" lenses, etc.: to get a different angle of the same old stuff. Personally speaking I don't fall for it nor the hype surrounding it.

Nevertheless, thanks for sharing what a pro goes though to get that "different" shot.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

 

[George D.]

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

Re everything photographed: I didn't even mention smartphones, selfie sticks, selfie videos, etc. image information overload.

As regards the 16-35/2.8L III this makes a good travelling lens that will therefore compete with the stellar 24-70/2.8L II. Very interesting to see how the two IQ compare.

 

[mb66energy]

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

- エスクテンションチューブEF12II使用時の撮影倍率：0.60x-0.12x
- エクステンションチューブEF25II使用時の撮影倍率：0.61x-0.27x

The red marked reproduction ratio for one of the extension tubes seems a little bit odd to me - there should be a factor of (very) roughly two between them.

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[xps]

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

rumored prices:
2199$ for the 16-35mm
and 1099$ for the 24-105

What will the price in € be?
16-35 2199€? 2400-2500€??? an big jump upwards
24-105 too....

http://nokishita-camera.blogspot.co.at/2016/08/ef16-35mm-f28l-iii-usmef24-105mm-f4l-is.html

 

[ahsanford]

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

Detailed specs updated on the story header on the CR home page!

Here's the original link, I believe:
http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-specs-price/

Of note:

24-105L II: $1,099 US

16-35 f/2.8L III: $2,199 US (yowza, they went for 24-70 f/2.8L II like money!)


24-105L II:

• No macro mode like the 24-70 f/4L IS
• 10 blades (interesting, Canon's been putting odd numbers of blades in of late for 2x the points on sunstars, this is a change)
• Ring USM with no mention of power zoom functionality
• 4 stop IS

Nothing particularly noteworthy on the 16-35 other than that price.

- A

 

[xps]

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

Detailed specs updated on the story header on the CR home page!

Here's the original link, I believe:
http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-ef-24-105mm-f4l-is-ii-specs-price/

Of note:

24-105L II: $1,099 US

16-35 f/2.8L III: $2,199 US (yowza, they went for 24-70 f/2.8L II like money!)


24-105L II:

• No macro mode like the 24-70 f/4L IS
• 10 blades (interesting, Canon's been putting odd numbers of blades in of late for 2x the points on sunstars, this is a change)
• Ring USM with no mention of power zoom functionality
• 4 stop IS

Nothing particularly noteworthy on the 16-35 other than that price.

- A

You come from America? Lucky guy. We will have to pay 1,2-1,3 times the price in €

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

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.

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.

Point 1, I regularly use Polarisers and Solid density ND filters. Often with a waterscape, I need one shutter speed for the sky and a very different shutter speed for water flow. If I have to shoot at iso 100 for max quality, and I'm forced to use f16 for depth of field...and I need a 2 second exposure for water and a 20 second exposure for the sky...then I have filter my exposure down. I then blend these two images using a soft brush in Photoshop. It takes less that 2 mins in my workflow and the results are excellent and natural looking. I think that ND grads are redundant in the DSLR world. But solid ND's will always have a place in serious landscape work. Regardless of what the current trend is among photographers.
Here is an example:

Point 2, I'm not sure it is the best selling ff wide lens at the moment. If you take into consideration just how many 16-35IIL or 17-40L have been sold over the years it makes the Nikon 14-24 sales figures pale in perspective. As I look back on the many photography landscape workshops I've been on, I can honestly say I've only ever seen one user with a 14-24 lens and he really struggled with it. Its very rare to need a 14mm angle of view and i would never sacrifice the long end of 35mm for it. The lack of filtration for it make it a dead duck as far as I'm concerned.

Point 3, In the fast world of landscape workshops, a 14-24 is a liability not an asset, so is the D800. Fast set up, quick analysis of composition, exposure and mood are essential. Juggling with crass filter hoods and over-sized filters are a recipe of disaster on a blustery sunset on the Cornish or Dorset coast. The 14-24 is the only Nikon lens choice, the others are far worse than the 16-35IIL...so is it any surprise that Nikon users flock to it and brag about it. The next best choice is either an ancient worm drive 17-35 or a 1st gen IF 17-35. Most of Nikon's lens catalog is ancient. 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.

Here's another example, one shot for the sky and another shot for the foreground. Two images taken on a tripod and blended. You won't get this type of shot in a hurry and hand held, certainly not when scrutinized at 100%.

 

[George D.]

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

Awesome stuff GMC.

edit: On second thought first shot perilous for UWA curved front element with all the saltwater and sand in the air...

 

[ahsanford]

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

Awesome stuff GMC.

edit: On second thought first shot perilous for UWA curved front element with all the saltwater and sand in the air...

I worry about that even with a flat front element! My Lee stack on a 16-35 f/4L IS is:

Naked front element + Lee adaptor ring + Lee holder and slot filters + large 105 CPL

Which means the sides of my 16-35 are open to bad news: splash, wind + sand, etc. I refuse to UV/clear my front element with all that landscape junk in front, so my 'sealed' lens is very much not sealed when the Lee kit comes out.

Side note: I got my ears boxed by a filter designer who occasionally comes to this forum to discuss his products. He insisted that I (if I recall correctly) put CPL directly on the lens and then stack up the Lee hardware or my sharpness would suffer. I've seen too many pros give tutorial videos the way I do it to want to change, but he seemed utterly convinced he was right.

- A

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

Awesome stuff GMC.

edit: On second thought first shot perilous for UWA curved front element with all the saltwater and sand in the air...

I worry about that even with a flat front element! My Lee stack on a 16-35 f/4L IS is:

Naked front element + Lee adaptor ring + Lee holder and slot filters + large 105 CPL

Which means the sides of my 16-35 are open to bad news: splash, wind + sand, etc. I refuse to UV/clear my front element with all that landscape junk in front, so my 'sealed' lens is very much not sealed when the Lee kit comes out.

Side note: I got my ears boxed by a filter designer who occasionally comes to this forum to discuss his products. He insisted that I (if I recall correctly) put CPL directly on the lens and then stack up the Lee hardware or my sharpness would suffer. I've seen too many pros give tutorial videos the way I do it to want to change, but he seemed utterly convinced he was right.

- A

It's good to worry about it in those conditions. Rain isn't too much of a problem, the water is clean and free from salt and easy to wipe down with a clean tissue. But salt water is a disaster to most things photographic. I use circular screw in filters from the Heliopan range. They do a great range of 82mm and 77mm filters. Their slim CPL is excellent and I usually carry 3/5/9 stop ND's and a polariser in both 77mm and 82mm options, with step rings in case of a problem. I don't bother using a UV or protection filters. It just adds needless glass to my lens. In direct sunlight, I need as little internal reflections as possible and most filters aren't as well coated as the lens.
The problem I have with the lee holders system is the filter stands away from the front of the lens more than with screw in filters. So there's more internal reflections, side reflections and if it's raining...rain drops between the filters.

My 16-35IIL is on it's second front element after it got beat up after 4 years of weddings. A number of scuffs and big scratch across the glass. It was Ok for most stuff, but for landscapes it was getting tricky with flare and ghosts. To date, it's the only lens I've had that's been in a bad shape. But that's because I use a hood with all my other lenses. The 16-35IIL's hood is a bit of a joke really. The front element cost a few hundred pounds to replace but it's not that much more than a complete lee holder rig and set of filters.

A mate of mine uses a coast rig of an old bashed up 5DII and a rather old 17-40L...which is a really nice lens in this context. Stopped down to f16...it'll give any lens a run for it's money.

I think in my situation, I'll be keeping my 16-35IIL for sunstars and coastal work. But getting a mk III once the price has come down a bit. I suspect that it'll be crazy priced initially.

 

[ahsanford]

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

I think in my situation, I'll be keeping my 16-35IIL for sunstars and coastal work. But getting a mk III once the price has come down a bit. I suspect that it'll be crazy priced initially.

Pan up in this thread: it will be $2,199 in the US.

- A

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

I think in my situation, I'll be keeping my 16-35IIL for sunstars and coastal work. But getting a mk III once the price has come down a bit. I suspect that it'll be crazy priced initially.

Pan up in this thread: it will be $2,199 in the US.

- A

Ouch...in the uk...that's about £2K once we add VAT.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

Personally 100mm is way short anyway so I always pair with a 70-300L so I prefer smaller size, weight and better optics of a lesser range 24-70 type lens to a 24-105.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

The CA and LoCA were way better as you say, but come on, don't forget how much vastly better the edge and corner sharpness was than the mush dog 24-105L anywhere near 24mm so it was vastly better as a landscape lens than the disappointing 24-105.

 

[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