EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
A 16-40 f/4L IS would get my attention. I find the 40mm end of my 17-40mm very useful as a 'standard FL' when I'm traveling and conditions (weather/dust) make me not want to change lenses at that moment.
fotoray said:
A 16-40 f/4L IS would get my attention. I find the 40mm end of my 17-40mm very useful as a 'standard FL' when I'm traveling and conditions (weather/dust) make me not want to change lenses at that moment.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
Interesting, but I sure as heck wish it could've been extended to 40mm if at all possible. Then you could easily get away with a 16-40 IS (and for sure if it had been the earlier 16-50 rumor) when you need IS more than anything and use it instead of 24-70 at times and the gap to a paired 70-300L or 70-200 wouldn't be too bad. 35mm to 70mm starts being a bit of a gap and sneaking it in for more portraits and such at 35mm is getting to be just a bit uncomfortable. EVen if it had a mediocre 35-40/50mm I wish they snuck that in. 45mm would've helped a ton.
The fact that it is f/4 and such a limited range does give hopes that it might perhaps deliver 24-70 II performance to the FF edges though. I do wish they had been able to tack on an extra 5-15mm focal length though, even if the performance there had been sub-par compared to the rest of the range, for people shots you can get away with it more and for nature stuff at least it's an emergency and likely better than quality from heavy crop. Although maybe it doesn't work that way and allowing to extend more would make the lower end suffer somehow (although I wouldn't think so, it could just keep extending and sliding and if the quality goes down more and more so be it, of course some would've screamed bloody murder about how the lens is junk because it's not so hot 40-45/50mm even though it's ultimate perfection 16-30mm).
Or if it wasn't going to go long, maybe 14-30mm f/4 IS would be more sense than 16-35mm f/4 IS since not sure 35mm is quite enough to quite make is dual purposed general lens. It's really kind of a pure wide angle on FF. And 14-30mm means you can dump Samyang 14mm and such. Hard to say though, 14mm is probably harder to pull off in a zoom especially without making it bulbous and weird and maybe 35mm gives JUST enough reach to at least make it a dual general wide landscape can just barely get away with it pairing with 70-200/300 at times. You can always pop in a light little 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 to cover the gap for the times non-stops lenss switching wouldn't be too much of a bother I guess, although in some cases that would be too slow and a bother.
Interesting, but I sure as heck wish it could've been extended to 40mm if at all possible. Then you could easily get away with a 16-40 IS (and for sure if it had been the earlier 16-50 rumor) when you need IS more than anything and use it instead of 24-70 at times and the gap to a paired 70-300L or 70-200 wouldn't be too bad. 35mm to 70mm starts being a bit of a gap and sneaking it in for more portraits and such at 35mm is getting to be just a bit uncomfortable. EVen if it had a mediocre 35-40/50mm I wish they snuck that in. 45mm would've helped a ton.
The fact that it is f/4 and such a limited range does give hopes that it might perhaps deliver 24-70 II performance to the FF edges though. I do wish they had been able to tack on an extra 5-15mm focal length though, even if the performance there had been sub-par compared to the rest of the range, for people shots you can get away with it more and for nature stuff at least it's an emergency and likely better than quality from heavy crop. Although maybe it doesn't work that way and allowing to extend more would make the lower end suffer somehow (although I wouldn't think so, it could just keep extending and sliding and if the quality goes down more and more so be it, of course some would've screamed bloody murder about how the lens is junk because it's not so hot 40-45/50mm even though it's ultimate perfection 16-30mm).
Or if it wasn't going to go long, maybe 14-30mm f/4 IS would be more sense than 16-35mm f/4 IS since not sure 35mm is quite enough to quite make is dual purposed general lens. It's really kind of a pure wide angle on FF. And 14-30mm means you can dump Samyang 14mm and such. Hard to say though, 14mm is probably harder to pull off in a zoom especially without making it bulbous and weird and maybe 35mm gives JUST enough reach to at least make it a dual general wide landscape can just barely get away with it pairing with 70-200/300 at times. You can always pop in a light little 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 to cover the gap for the times non-stops lenss switching wouldn't be too much of a bother I guess, although in some cases that would be too slow and a bother.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
IS can be nice for a wide lens. Sometimes you want to enjoy as much as photograph yet still want to take as serious and high quality shot as you can and IS could mean two stops plus lower ISO for better detail and more DR without having to do the tripod dance. Sometimes you are with people and constant tripod use bogs things down and then well they get annoyed and you are no longer with people hah. IS could help that a bit. Sometimes the light is changing fast and being able to quickly hand hold a bunch of shots lets you capture a whole bunch of wild stuff while tripod means you maybe miss half the shots if not more. Sometimes you are on the more city part of a trip and dragging a tripod around is a drag or not allowed and IS is good for those times.
sanj said:
IS can be nice for a wide lens. Sometimes you want to enjoy as much as photograph yet still want to take as serious and high quality shot as you can and IS could mean two stops plus lower ISO for better detail and more DR without having to do the tripod dance. Sometimes you are with people and constant tripod use bogs things down and then well they get annoyed and you are no longer with people hah. IS could help that a bit. Sometimes the light is changing fast and being able to quickly hand hold a bunch of shots lets you capture a whole bunch of wild stuff while tripod means you maybe miss half the shots if not more. Sometimes you are on the more city part of a trip and dragging a tripod around is a drag or not allowed and IS is good for those times.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
But look at the 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS at the wide end or the 24 2.8 IS or 24 T&S II or 17 T&S. YOu used to be able to say doubt it when you looked at 24-105 and 24-70 2.8 and 28-135 and 24 2.8 and 16-35 and 17-40, but they have released a lot of stuff since then.
rbr said:
But look at the 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS at the wide end or the 24 2.8 IS or 24 T&S II or 17 T&S. YOu used to be able to say doubt it when you looked at 24-105 and 24-70 2.8 and 28-135 and 24 2.8 and 16-35 and 17-40, but they have released a lot of stuff since then.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
I sure do wish it could make it to 40/45mm!! Even if it's a very average IQ at 40-45mm.
mrsfotografie said:
I sure do wish it could make it to 40/45mm!! Even if it's a very average IQ at 40-45mm.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
If anything, your explanation makes most sense. I didn't think about the range "fit" for the STM line of lenses. Looks like I'm keeping my UWA.
pdirestajr said:
If anything, your explanation makes most sense. I didn't think about the range "fit" for the STM line of lenses. Looks like I'm keeping my UWA.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
How is supoused to be good for video a zoom lens (EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM) with no constant max. aperture?
Am I missing something? Please do not tell me "you shouldn´t zoom while making videos".
How is supoused to be good for video a zoom lens (EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM) with no constant max. aperture?
Am I missing something? Please do not tell me "you shouldn´t zoom while making videos".
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
what do you zoom in the 10-18mm range?
this lens is for stabilized video recording with silent AF. and for that, it's the missing link. it's pretty good for making video from family events. I love my 17-55 USM for photos but don't like the rattling while focusing. it's good indoors, but outdoors, no fast aperture is needed. STM lenses are much better for this.
if a fair price is given to it (~$300), I have my birthday
Frage said:How is supoused to be good for video a zoom lens (EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM) with no constant max. aperture?
Am I missing something? Please do not tell me "you shouldn´t zoom while making videos".
what do you zoom in the 10-18mm range?
this lens is for stabilized video recording with silent AF. and for that, it's the missing link. it's pretty good for making video from family events. I love my 17-55 USM for photos but don't like the rattling while focusing. it's good indoors, but outdoors, no fast aperture is needed. STM lenses are much better for this.
if a fair price is given to it (~$300), I have my birthday
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
16-35 f4 IS would be good if they match it up with Nikon's VR offering and can keep it around $1200ish. Though, even if it's a stellar performer I'm not sure if I'd ditch my 17-40 for it. Like everyone else, I really want a 14-24 f/2.8
16-35 f4 IS would be good if they match it up with Nikon's VR offering and can keep it around $1200ish. Though, even if it's a stellar performer I'm not sure if I'd ditch my 17-40 for it. Like everyone else, I really want a 14-24 f/2.8
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
A new 16-35 IS would be very tempting. But as an owner of an excellent copy of a 17-40L, I'd need a 12-24 IS or 14-28 IS to migrate.
A new 16-35 IS would be very tempting. But as an owner of an excellent copy of a 17-40L, I'd need a 12-24 IS or 14-28 IS to migrate.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
If you did zoom at that width then just set it to a fixed f/5.6, who says you have to shoot it set f/4 on the wide end and then glide to f/5.6 as you zoom in? Just lock it at f/5.6.
Frage said:How is supoused to be good for video a zoom lens (EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM) with no constant max. aperture?
Am I missing something? Please do not tell me "you shouldn´t zoom while making videos".
If you did zoom at that width then just set it to a fixed f/5.6, who says you have to shoot it set f/4 on the wide end and then glide to f/5.6 as you zoom in? Just lock it at f/5.6.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
thing is those budget plastic mount 18-55 IS STM and 55-250 IS STM are actually mad sharp, heck the 55-250 STM is said to rival the 70-200 f/4 IS for optics.
cellomaster27 said:pdirestajr said:
If anything, your explanation makes most sense. I didn't think about the range "fit" for the STM line of lenses. Looks like I'm keeping my UWA.
thing is those budget plastic mount 18-55 IS STM and 55-250 IS STM are actually mad sharp, heck the 55-250 STM is said to rival the 70-200 f/4 IS for optics.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
erggg what is with all the underwhelming slow aperture lenses! why not a 16-35 f2.8 IS? really c'mon canon
f4 wow awesome... NOT
erggg what is with all the underwhelming slow aperture lenses! why not a 16-35 f2.8 IS? really c'mon canon
f4 wow awesome... NOT
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
I've been saving for the 10-22 so I will be waiting to see the 10-18. Lower cost would be nice and can I wish for a 67mm filter size? I'd rather not buy a 77mm CP filter. STM will be nice for video.
I've been saving for the 10-22 so I will be waiting to see the 10-18. Lower cost would be nice and can I wish for a 67mm filter size? I'd rather not buy a 77mm CP filter. STM will be nice for video.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
I can vouch for the new plastic STM's. The 7D was not getting any use at all until I picked up the rock bottom priced 18-55 and 55-250 STM's; now it's a lot of fun with huge improvements on image quality as opposed to using full frame L glass on the crop 7D.
The news of a cheap wide angle STM is very welcome.
I can vouch for the new plastic STM's. The 7D was not getting any use at all until I picked up the rock bottom priced 18-55 and 55-250 STM's; now it's a lot of fun with huge improvements on image quality as opposed to using full frame L glass on the crop 7D.
The news of a cheap wide angle STM is very welcome.
LetTheRightLensIn said:cellomaster27 said:pdirestajr said:
If anything, your explanation makes most sense. I didn't think about the range "fit" for the STM line of lenses. Looks like I'm keeping my UWA.
thing is those budget plastic mount 18-55 IS STM and 55-250 IS STM are actually mad sharp, heck the 55-250 STM is said to rival the 70-200 f/4 IS for optics.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
Sorry, but that's a bit of a stretch. They are good, but not that good. Then again, you don't expect them to perform the same as a lens costing 1K more, do you?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Sorry, but that's a bit of a stretch. They are good, but not that good. Then again, you don't expect them to perform the same as a lens costing 1K more, do you?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
Canonites are constantly lamenting the lack of a 12-24mm to rival the Nikon, but then the Nikonians are lamenting the lack of a TS-E 17mm to rival the Canon. Not to mention that the PC-E 24mm is generally thought to be slightly inferior to the Canon TS-E, and Canon's newish 24, 28 and 35 IS options were also well received. With a lot of Zeiss options to choose from as well the Canon mount wide angles don't seem too bad (as long as you are shooting full frame), of course some improvements would be very welcome and are perhaps overdue.
Canonites are constantly lamenting the lack of a 12-24mm to rival the Nikon, but then the Nikonians are lamenting the lack of a TS-E 17mm to rival the Canon. Not to mention that the PC-E 24mm is generally thought to be slightly inferior to the Canon TS-E, and Canon's newish 24, 28 and 35 IS options were also well received. With a lot of Zeiss options to choose from as well the Canon mount wide angles don't seem too bad (as long as you are shooting full frame), of course some improvements would be very welcome and are perhaps overdue.
Upvote
0
Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]
I'll take a 16-35 f/4 IS as long as it's really good ...
Shallow DOF is not possible with UW unless you get down under f/2. f/2.8 doesn't cut it there. And you often want deep DOF in wide shots, so you end up at f/8 - f/16 a lot of the time anyway
With new cameras getting good results at really high ISO's, the extra light is getting to be less important too.
the f/4 solution gives you a smaller, lighter lens that may outperform the other ultrawides .
Now IS ... I took this HDR photo handheld standing on the sidewalk at 16mm. https://www.flickr.com/photos/39860197@N02/9103336331/
The light was just right when I was walking by with no tripod. The light did not last long. Image Stabilization would have helped a lot.
And for video ... IS takes away the micro-shakes and makes a huge difference . The 28 2.8 IS and the 35 f/2 IS work like a dream for handheld video.
I'll take a 16-35 f/4 IS as long as it's really good ...
Shallow DOF is not possible with UW unless you get down under f/2. f/2.8 doesn't cut it there. And you often want deep DOF in wide shots, so you end up at f/8 - f/16 a lot of the time anyway
With new cameras getting good results at really high ISO's, the extra light is getting to be less important too.
the f/4 solution gives you a smaller, lighter lens that may outperform the other ultrawides .
Now IS ... I took this HDR photo handheld standing on the sidewalk at 16mm. https://www.flickr.com/photos/39860197@N02/9103336331/
The light was just right when I was walking by with no tripod. The light did not last long. Image Stabilization would have helped a lot.
And for video ... IS takes away the micro-shakes and makes a huge difference . The 28 2.8 IS and the 35 f/2 IS work like a dream for handheld video.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
