EF 16-35mm f/4L IS available for pre-order for $ 1199

[sagittariansrock]

Just announced. Great price!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/SUB/cpw

 

[sagittariansrock]

Also 10-18mm for $ 299.
If you own a 10-22mm, sorry- your resale value just bombed again (I suffered from the last bout when moving from APS-C to FF).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051476-USA/canon_9519b002_ef_s_10_18mm_f_4_5_5_6_is.html/SUB/cpw

 

[Dylan777]

4stop IS , Uhmmmmmmmm music to my ears. MTF looks nice and clean.

 

[dcm]

The press release on Canon USA - also a white SL1.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480beda0d#

 

[sagittariansrock]

Here are some more specs. Man, now I am really craving the L. I will wait though. I am sure. Definitely.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/unveiled-two-new-canon-wide-angle-zoom-lenses

 

[privatebydesign]

The 16-35/f4L IS is not weather sealed, which is the same as the 17-40/f4L. From the B&H listing:

* When an optional 77mm Protect filter is used, the lens realizes dust- and water-resistance for use in trying environmental conditions.

It has the same weather sealing as the 17-40, the 16-35 MkI and MkII, and the 50 f1.2L. What is your point?

 

[Dylan777]

The 16-35/f4L IS is not weather sealed, which is the same as the 17-40/f4L. From the B&H listing:

* When an optional 77mm Protect filter is used, the lens realizes dust- and water-resistance for use in trying environmental conditions.

It has the same weather sealing as the 17-40, the 16-35 MkI and MkII, and the 50 f1.2L. What is your point?

That it isn't weather sealed.

Both 17-40 & 16-35 II are "water-resistant", according to Canon. They didn't said water sealed.

 

[sagittariansrock]

A comparison with the revered Nikon 14-24 in terms of sharpness and resolution:

16-35/f4L	14-24/f2.8

 

[sagittariansrock]

The 16-35/f4L IS is not weather sealed, which is the same as the 17-40/f4L. From the B&H listing:

* When an optional 77mm Protect filter is used, the lens realizes dust- and water-resistance for use in trying environmental conditions.

It has the same weather sealing as the 17-40, the 16-35 MkI and MkII, and the 50 f1.2L. What is your point?

That it isn't weather sealed.

So which one is?

 

[privatebydesign]

The 16-35/f4L IS is not weather sealed, which is the same as the 17-40/f4L. From the B&H listing:

* When an optional 77mm Protect filter is used, the lens realizes dust- and water-resistance for use in trying environmental conditions.

It has the same weather sealing as the 17-40, the 16-35 MkI and MkII, and the 50 f1.2L. What is your point?

That it isn't weather sealed.

But when you put a clear filter on it it is, just like the 17-40, 16-35, 16-35 MkII and the 50 f1.2. I still don't understand your point. There is nothing new or unexpected in the design with regards weather sealing.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Bit disappointed the EF-S lens has a plastic mount...
I suppose its not going to be the "unstated L" like the 10-22 is...

 

[sagittariansrock]

The 16-35/f4L IS is not weather sealed, which is the same as the 17-40/f4L. From the B&H listing:

* When an optional 77mm Protect filter is used, the lens realizes dust- and water-resistance for use in trying environmental conditions.

It has the same weather sealing as the 17-40, the 16-35 MkI and MkII, and the 50 f1.2L. What is your point?

That it isn't weather sealed.

But when you put a clear filter on it it is, just like the 17-40, 16-35, 16-35 MkII and the 50 f1.2. I still don't understand your point. There is nothing new or unexpected in the design with regards weather sealing.

+1. Every lens that has a moving front element needs an extra filter to seal it. Canon/Nikon could put an optically unnecessary piece of glass up front, they just want you to do it IF you need it. What's wrong with that?
What a silly issue to bring up.

 

[privatebydesign]

The 16-35/f4L IS is not weather sealed, which is the same as the 17-40/f4L. From the B&H listing:

* When an optional 77mm Protect filter is used, the lens realizes dust- and water-resistance for use in trying environmental conditions.

It has the same weather sealing as the 17-40, the 16-35 MkI and MkII, and the 50 f1.2L. What is your point?

That it isn't weather sealed.

So which one is?

All the rest of the L's that are rated as weather sealed, they don't need a clear filter to seal the front, everything from the 14mm MkII to the 800mm. Some of the older designs, the 35 f1.4, the 70-200 f2.8 non IS etc don't have the rear seal that is the key, though to be honest "weather sealing" is a misnomer, in many instances it is just a bit of tape over a hole.

 

[sagittariansrock]

The 16-35/f4L IS is not weather sealed, which is the same as the 17-40/f4L. From the B&H listing:

* When an optional 77mm Protect filter is used, the lens realizes dust- and water-resistance for use in trying environmental conditions.

It has the same weather sealing as the 17-40, the 16-35 MkI and MkII, and the 50 f1.2L. What is your point?

That it isn't weather sealed.

So which one is?

All the rest of the L's that are rated as weather sealed, they don't need a clear filter to seal the front, everything from the 14mm MkII to the 800mm. Some of the older designs, the 35 f1.4, the 70-200 f2.8 non IS etc don't have the rear seal that is the key, though to be honest "weather sealing" is a misnomer, in many instances it is just a bit of tape over a hole.

It was a rhetorical question. I meant to say- none of them are "weather sealed". At best they can be weather resistant, and in case of a lens with a moving front element (w.r.t. the barrel) it requires a filter.

I also just realized that I have both of the two non-weather resistant L lenses in Canon's current lineup, and my only lens with IS is the 70-200 II.
Hmmm... I suppose I could add one lens with both weather resistance AND IS to my lineup in one go, but should I...

 

[Mr_Canuck]

The price is surprising. I was expecting it to be more ridiculous like the 24-70 f/4 is at retail. I guess it's in line with the f4's like 70-200 too. If it follows the 24-70 in quality it should be very popular. I think that in the 28-35mm range the IS becomes quite a relevant factor. I'm tempted by it but will stick with my Voigtlander 20mm and 40STM combo. Or maybe look out for a 17-40 going cheap!

 

[wickidwombat]

ROFL $1200 really? thats ridiculous for that lens I think the 16-35 mkII can be had for around $1600 AUD on ebay

you can buy an EOS-M kit and a 11-22 IS EF-M and still have change out of $800....

10-18 IS at $300 is pretty decent though and will make a nice partner to a 15-85 on a crop system or the 18-135 STM which is not too bad

 

[sagittariansrock]

ROFL $1200 really?

Your response is ROFL?

The Nikon 17-35 IS costs $ 1256 year after its release and you should look at its MTF sometime.

 

[wickidwombat]

ROFL $1200 really?

Your response is ROFL?

The Nikon 17-35 IS costs $ 1256 year after its release and you should look at its MTF sometime.

yeah at f4 i'm not interested in the slightest i have the 11-22 on the eos M if i need a slow UWA with IS...
just totally annoyed at this trend of adding IS and slowing down the glass but at least sigma is doing good things

 

[dcm]

The 16-35/f4L IS is not weather sealed, which is the same as the 17-40/f4L. From the B&H listing:

* When an optional 77mm Protect filter is used, the lens realizes dust- and water-resistance for use in trying environmental conditions.

It has the same weather sealing as the 17-40, the 16-35 MkI and MkII, and the 50 f1.2L. What is your point?

That it isn't weather sealed.

So which one is?

All the rest of the L's that are rated as weather sealed, they don't need a clear filter to seal the front, everything from the 14mm MkII to the 800mm. Some of the older designs, the 35 f1.4, the 70-200 f2.8 non IS etc don't have the rear seal that is the key, though to be honest "weather sealing" is a misnomer, in many instances it is just a bit of tape over a hole.

It was a rhetorical question. I meant to say- none of them are "weather sealed". At best they can be weather resistant, and in case of a lens with a moving front element (w.r.t. the barrel) it requires a filter.

I also just realized that I have both of the two non-weather resistant L lenses in Canon's current lineup, and my only lens with IS is the 70-200 II.
Hmmm... I suppose I could add one lens with both weather resistance AND IS to my lineup in one go, but should I...

Canon doesn't appear to use the terms waterproof or weather sealed in their product literature that I have seen. These may reflect what we wish, but not what they promise. There appears to be three cases for L lenses. In many L lens manuals, the first page titled "Thank you for purchasing a Canon product." lists features, including a feature of the form

"Tight seal structure ensures excellent dust-proof and drip-proof performance."

Without the use of any measures or standards, these can be open to interpretation. My 100 f/2.8 L IS Macro, 70-200 f/4L IS, 24-105 f/4L IS, and even the 8-15 f/4L have this feature.

A few lenses like my 17-40 f/4L, the 16-35 f/2.8L II, and presumably the 16-35 f/4L (it appears on the web page, but no manual is posted yet) have an additional note of the form

"Since the front element of this lens moves when focusing (zooming), you need to attach a Canon PROTECT filter sold separately for adequate dust- and water-resistance performance. Without a filter, the lens is not dust or water-resistant."

A surprising number of lenses, mostly the older versions, lack this feature, including my 35 f/1.4 L and 135 f/2 L. Similarly the 14 f/2.8L and 24 f/1.4L lacked this feature but both of the version II lenses include it. Similarly for the zooms like the 70-200 f/2.8L, 28-70 f/2.8L, and 17-35 f/2.8L.

It's best to check the lens manual if you aren't sure.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said, in brief.
I have both the non-resistant Ls, 35L and the 135L

yeah at f4 i'm not interested in the slightest i have the 11-22 on the eos M if i need a slow UWA with IS...
just totally annoyed at this trend of adding IS and slowing down the glass but at least sigma is doing good things

You are not their only target customer, fortunately.
There are many uses of an UWA with IS, there a current thread going on about that, and Viggo and ahsanford make some excellent arguments in favor.
And I don't get this whole slowing down thing, you can still buy the f/2.8 lenses, you know? All they have done is add IS to a very popular lens and made it PRETTY sharp, at a very reasonable price point.

I will hopefully pick one up after the early adopters stock up Canon's wallet and beta test the lenses for us. Maybe even get a discounted refurb for ~850 bucks (like the 70-200 IS). Say, that'd be nice!