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

[Eldar]

If they wrote Sealed and Proof, instead of Resistant and Protected, they could potentially end up with lots of warranty claims they don´t want.

I have had all my weather resistant L-glass out in pretty awful weather. Those who require an extra filter to be protected have one. I have never had any issues with water or dust/sand. They have been in the arctic, the tropics and in the desert.

Canon cannot risk the quality reputation of their L-glass, so I am sure it is pretty good. What surprised me was the price. Maybe we don´t have to be so pessimistic about future releases after all ... :

 

[sagittariansrock]

Canon cannot risk the quality reputation of their L-glass, so I am sure it is pretty good. What surprised me was the price. Maybe we don´t have to be so pessimistic about future releases after all ... :

+1.

I expected more like $ 1500.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Also the EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM for only US$299.

 

[dgatwood]

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!

On the one hand, this lens feels a little pricey if you assume that an f/4 IS lens is intended to be a poor man's 16-35 f/2.8 L II, because it's almost the same price as the f/2.8 ($1200 vs. $1500, currently).

On the other hand, if I'm reading the MTF charts correctly, the f/2.8 L II just got a *lot* less attractive.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

One thing I've realized coming from Sony then Pentax (with in-body stabilization), is that IS is really a big discussion point here in Canon land. I didn't think that stabilization was that huge a deal but maybe I have steady hands. Regardless, at the wide end I think it's much less critical. I guess the IS discussion is a trade-off for the previous discussions about ultrasonic motors vs all the noisy screwdriven ones Pentax and Sony/Minolta put out. I just don't know why any Canon lens at all in the future would not have IS. Just make it like Subaru all wheel drive in every vehicle. Standardization makes for economies of scale. Ends the debate too.

 

[wickidwombat]

One thing I've realized coming from Sony then Pentax (with in-body stabilization), is that IS is really a big discussion point here in Canon land. I didn't think that stabilization was that huge a deal but maybe I have steady hands. Regardless, at the wide end I think it's much less critical. I guess the IS discussion is a trade-off for the previous discussions about ultrasonic motors vs all the noisy screwdriven ones Pentax and Sony/Minolta put out. I just don't know why any Canon lens at all in the future would not have IS. Just make it like Subaru all wheel drive in every vehicle. Standardization makes for economies of scale. Ends the debate too.

I agree it should be added into every new generation lens
after getting the EF-M 11-22 with IS i absolutely LOVE having IS on an UWA Lens
but I also love having wide aperture on a UWA too