EF 16-40 f/4L IS [CR1]

[ronderick]

A 16-40 f/4L would be fine for me (even better, f/3.5).

At this range, IS would be nice, but I could live w/o it if it's going to make the lens bigger. The compact size and price of the 17-40 f/4L is what makes it a great lens on the cost-performance scale; I hope the new one won't overlook this advantage.

If not, I might as well wait for the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 ED challenger... It should be somewhere down the road (though I'd expect about 2 or 3 more years).

 

[VirtualRain]

This sounds great, but I'm tired of growing old waiting for new Canon products. It's what?... like a year from rumor to announcement, then another year to production?

 

[ronderick]

This sounds great, but I'm tired of growing old waiting for new Canon products. It's what?... like a year from rumor to announcement, then another year to production?

This year's the exception... who'd expect a major disaster to hit the main production center of cameras and have such a long after effect?

I'd say seeing production return in such a short time is pretty amazing already, given all the negative news about blackouts and power shortages.

 

[match14]

It's a pity they cold not make it a tad longer say 55mm or 60mm then it could be the perfect weather sealed standard zoom for 7D. Current weather sealed options are 17-40 L, too short; 24-105 L and 24 - 70 L, not wide enough.

If you want this focal length range for a 7D, what's wrong with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8? I know, it's not an L lens.

17-55 is a great lens, but it is not sealed. I'm may end up getting one anyway.

 

[NXT1000]

i doubt canon will put IS in their wide lense, even if they would do so, they will do it on f2.8 lens first. This is not making sense. Yes, it will make many people happy, but first, we want to see 24-70 f2.8 IS first.

 

[Flake]

i doubt canon will put IS in their wide lense, even if they would do so, they will do it on f2.8 lens first. This is not making sense. Yes, it will make many people happy, but first, we want to see 24-70 f2.8 IS first.

Erm where do you get this opinion from? Have you not looked at Nikons current range ? They released a 16 - 35mm f/4 VR which was much appreciated. Canon has no alternative to offer. Nikons prices are always a little higher but this thing costs £850 ! much higher than the £570 of the 17 - 40mm f/4 so expect a price hike.

Nikon have not put VR on their wide angle f/2.8 so there's no much chance that Canon will be doing it either.

 

[John Smith]

As a user of the current 17-40, I can assure you that corner resolution is not an issue to me. When i need resolution (landscapes etc), i use f/8-13 and I get very sharp images.
If this 16-40 IS hits the shops, I 'll definitely take it just for the IS!!!!

Even at f/11 there's plenty of room for improvement at the wide end.

 

[akiskev]

As a user of the current 17-40, I can assure you that corner resolution is not an issue to me. When i need resolution (landscapes etc), i use f/8-13 and I get very sharp images.
If this 16-40 IS hits the shops, I 'll definitely take it just for the IS!!!!

Even at f/11 there's plenty of room for improvement at the wide end.

Sure there is, I just don't need it for my prints, even if they are 1 meter long.

 

[John Smith]

I don't see Canon releasing such a lens, it would even kill the 16-35 II if it is sharp wide open.

I don't really believe this rumor, but it would be a good lens for those who shoot both FF and CFx1.6. Make it 50/55mm and it would be perfect.

That excludes the possiblity of the 16-35mm f/2.8 being replaced with a wider f/2.8 lens.

 

[Aputure]

This would be a dream lens, as long as the size is kept to reasonable minimum.

 

[7enderbender]

I don't get it. What would be attractive about this? Yes, I know that you can get away with f/4 in a lot of standard situations (still have my 24-105). And yes, IS kind of works as long as objects are static. But in a wide-angle zoom? And then another lens that is only f/4 but probably more expensive and bigger than the current 17-40?

Nah, I'll keep saving for the 16-35 or some wide angle prime.

 

[Caps18]

I have the 16-35mm f/2.8, and I am happy with it. I use the f/2.8 far more than the 35-40mm range, plus the faster shutter at other apertures...

Now a 16-40mm f/2.8 or a 17-50mm f/2.8 IS would be perfect...

 

[awinphoto]

I have the 16-35mm f/2.8, and I am happy with it. I use the f/2.8 far more than the 35-40mm range, plus the faster shutter at other apertures...

Now a 16-40mm f/2.8 or a 17-50mm f/2.8 IS would be perfect...

The day they announce this lens is the day I put my 17-40 up on craigslist and put my order in for this one. The irony with the price inflation over the last year, the price I paid 2-3 years ago for it new is $150 cheaper than current retail rates so I could make up my entire investment on this lens and then some on the used market. =) It's not often you need shallow DOF (F 2.8 ) for wide angle because bokeh is diminished in wide angles due to the wider angle and lower focus scale making the relation between the subject matter and infinity a lot closer than mid range or telephoto. If I need that tad bit of speed, I will throw in my 430 and give me my extra light.

Now what I want and need is that a lens that is sharp, sharp, and sharp. Corner sharpness doesn't have to be exceptional, acceptable even on full frame, and an IS that does a good 4 stop correction. I shoot a lot of architecture and commercial real estate in which I go into a lot of empty warehouses or foreclosed buildings and have to take pictures quickly with what I'm given as I'm paid by the job, not the hour, so If i spend a day or an hour, I still get the same pay. If I can handhold close to a second and get sharp photos, I'll buy 2 of them.

 

[mathino]

I'd much rather have a 14-24mm 2.8L like Nikon. Are we ever going to get one...

Agreed. Would be very useful to have 14-24 24-70 70-200 all f/2.8.

 

[asu]

i hope its true...
no need the stabilizer thing, prefer for wider lenght 15mm maybe??? 8)