Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

[ahsanford]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)

yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle

[hand to face] I believe the end of your statement was missing the phrase "...for what I shoot." Tons of people want IS on wide angles.

I am formally nominating "IS or no IS on Wide Angles" to the CR Forum's We Are Never Going To Agree On This Hall of Fame.

It's right up there with:

• The decision to use / not use UV filters
• Any debate about dynamic range
• IQ of a 1.6x cropped FF image versus a full APS-C image

In that there are two camps that will never agree with each other.

- A

 

[Skirball]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

I am formally nominating "IS or no IS on Wide Angles" to the CR Forum's We Are Never Going To Agree On This Hall of Fame.

I don't know if there's ever been a single thing of substance that the people of CR have agreed on. Hell, we could discuss why the sky is blue and it'd digress into arguments of Pantone colors, monitor calibration and why anybody would ever shoot jpg.

 

[wickidwombat]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

I am formally nominating "IS or no IS on Wide Angles" to the CR Forum's We Are Never Going To Agree On This Hall of Fame.

I don't know if there's ever been a single thing of substance that the people of CR have agreed on. Hell, we could discuss why the sky is blue and it'd digress into arguments of Pantone colors, monitor calibration and why anybody would ever shoot jpg.

Not to mention if a cpl was used and if it was used on an Uwa
But I agree I laugh so hard when I read the bs of IS is useless on an Uwa
So funny....

 

[Azathoth]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle

Useless, why is that? How about the ability to shoot with a lower speed handheld? Want a real word scenario? You are a turist and you are visiting the Palace of Versailles near Paris. You'll need a very wide lens because the space is limited. And you can't use a tripod because there are lots of people and you need to take the pictures quickly. With IS, you can use a lower speed, this means you can use a lower iso, so you'll get less noise.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)

yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle

[hand to face] I believe the end of your statement was missing the phrase "...for what I shoot." Tons of people want IS on wide angles.

I am formally nominating "IS or no IS on Wide Angles" to the CR Forum's We Are Never Going To Agree On This Hall of Fame.

It's right up there with:

• The decision to use / not use UV filters
• Any debate about dynamic range
• IQ of a 1.6x cropped FF image versus a full APS-C image

In that there are two camps that will never agree with each other.

- A

I think people develop tunnel vision from years of staring through the viewfinder.

 

[rrcphoto]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)

yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle

I can bet that there will be tons more that purchase the much smaller and much lighter 10-18 and cheaper. perhaps you fail to grasp the market in which it's targeting.

 

[Zv]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)

yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle

I love this logic - so you want to pay MORE money for LESS range, a bulkier and heavier lens without IS (which is apparently useless anyway)?

Yeah, I mean like who would ever buy a wide angle lens with IS? Deja-vu ... Didn't we do this when the 24mm f/2.8 IS and 28mm f/2.8 IS were announced? Remind me what 18mm is on a crop? :

They scoffed at the notion then but it seems to be selling quite well so it can't be all that useless, can it?

Oh .... and hands up who here would love to have the little EF-M 11-22mm lens? On many peoples wish list, and why is that? Super small compact UWA lens with IS? Oh yes please! ;D

 

[hemidesign]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

16-35 f4 IS?.. this lens IMO is useless.. WTF!!!

and who uses IS on wide angle lens?.. where's the 14-24 2.8?... we need something good, not stupid!

 

[tron]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

16-35 f4 IS?.. this lens IMO is useless.. WTF!!!

and who uses IS on wide angle lens?.. where's the 14-24 2.8?... we need something good, not stupid!

16-35 f4 IS is not stupid! I would like a 2.8 version but that does not mean that the specific lens is not
useful. In fact if it sharp up to the corners then it is the ideal landscape zoom (small, sharp, taking filters)...

 

[Jack56]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Is there any "evidence" that this will be a lens that's sharp up to the corners?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Notice how these new lenses are SUPER SLOW? The lie we're being sold is that IS makes up for the 1-stop loss. I predicted this trend years ago--that Canon's lens development will go in the direction of slower-aperture, IS designs that are more profitable because they don't need tighter tolerances or more expensive optical designs, but the price tag is "justified" because, oh, wait, it's got IS, as if that will totally make up for the slowness.

I'm frankly sick of this. Especially in light of how even a company like Sigma can make a sub $1000 50/1.4 lens that beats the pants off of anything Canon or Nikon has *ever* made at that focal length, and has people comparing it to a $3500 MF lens from Zeiss.

These new lenses will be overpriced (the L being at least $2100, I guarantee it), and will still under-perform even though it will be a little better in the corner sharpness over its predecessors. At such short focal lengths, almost any IS advantage is nullified by the fact that unless you're shooting something that's completely stationary, the shutter speeds at which IS would be relevant would result in subject motion blur.

It's dangerous to make predictions man! You are off on a quite a few here. We now know the price - $1199. And we do have a CR2 letting us know that a 2.8 UWA is on the way.

Now as to all lenses being slow? This one is pretty false, Canon is filling gaps in it's lineup, and yeah that does include a few slower lenses with IS - why, mostly to satiate the video folks out there (and yes, some still shooters want it) - and - it fills a few more price points too. Those on a budget now have a trinity of f4, this doesn't eliminate the 2.8 trinity by any means (the 70-200 2.8v2 is still fairly new, and the 24-70 2.8v2 is very new - so now the question mark is will the 16-35 get it's v3 or will it become a 14-24?)

The part you are right on is your $2100 figure, but it's for the wrong lens. The new UWA 2.8 will probably be at around $2100, like the other new 2.8's....

As to sigma - apples and oranges. Sigma mostly specializes in lenses, they don't have anywhere near the overhead as canon does - or nikon for that matter. Also, while the ART series is the start of a change for sigma from cheap low quality glass to moderately priced better IQ glass, they still have issues, mainly in their AF systems. Reading through the forums I see lots of mixed messages about the 35 and the 50 ---they beat the pants off the canon offerings when the AF hits, but AF consistency is a big issue that sigma needs to fix.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Like I said in an earlier topic: This may be a dealbreaker for 17-40 F/4 owners who value the added flexibility of the 40mm focal length if the new lens isn't a 17-40 F4 IS.

Even if it delivered a crappy 40-45mm I really wish they had extended it anyway!

Except that then the reviews would can it because the longer section of the zoom is crap.

also, gotta point out the obvious...better IQ and sharper images give you way more room to crop - which potentially means you could crop that long end shot from the new lens to a 70mm FOV and still get better IQ that you would have at 40mm on the 17-40...

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

People do buy long super teles. A 1200mm with IS would be welcome to a lot of people.

while a 1200mm IS would be welcome by many, like me, I'd welcome it but would never ever ever buy such a thing. who here could afford such a thing? Hell, I wouldn't even be able to cover the 3 day rental cost on such a thing....

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

You do realize that was a 38lb lens that cost around $120,000 ... right?

I'm sure the list of people that would welcome it would be close to nil.

20+ years of R&D can significantly lessen the weight and what people can and cannot afford really isnt any of our business.

yes, it could lessen the weight, and yeah, ok, take the price down a notch or 2...so maybe they could make one now for a retail of $80,000... eho can afford such a lens????

And what people can and can't afford may not be our business - it certainly is canon's...why wouldthey devote time, money, resources into making a thing no one would buy because the price tag is outrageous and it's use is very very very much niche....

 

[scyrene]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

16-35 f4 IS?.. this lens IMO is useless.. WTF!!!

and who uses IS on wide angle lens?.. where's the 14-24 2.8?... we need something good, not stupid!

I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.

 

[Ruined]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations. But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that. In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds. IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas. I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

 

[Zv]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations. But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that. In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds. IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas. I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

 

[Ruined]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations. But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that. In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds. IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas. I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

What image-stabilized wide angle Canon do you have experience with?

There is nothing wrong with the IS system, I use it for panning shots all the time.

I tested from 1/30 all the way down and in between to 1/2, as Canon claims the IS system had the equivalent of 4 stops stabilization - which would be around 1/2 for a 35mm. The bottom line was the the IS system was unreliable at 1/15, 1/8, and especially below that while the pics were usable, they were definitely blurry compared to a monopod and not much different than with IS disabled assuming halfway decent technique. This is different than with the 70-200 where the IS truly works as many stops as advertised.

I also noticed the same behavior with the 28mm IS when I had it, the IS simply is not as effective at very slow shutter speeds.

 

[Zv]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations. But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that. In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds. IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas. I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

What image-stabilized wide angle Canon do you have experience with?

There is nothing wrong with the IS system, I use it for panning shots all the time.

I tested from 1/30 all the way down and in between to 1/2, as Canon claims the IS system had the equivalent of 4 stops stabilization - which would be around 1/2 for a 35mm. The bottom line was the the IS system was unreliable at 1/15, 1/8, and especially below that while the pics were usable, they were definitely blurry compared to a monopod and not much different than with IS disabled assuming halfway decent technique. This is different than with the 70-200 where the IS truly works as many stops as advertised.

I also noticed the same behavior with the 28mm IS when I had it, the IS simply is not as effective at very slow shutter speeds.

Yeah I agree that the stabilization effect is more noticeable with a 70-200 than with the wider focal lengths but with my 17-55 @ 17mm I was getting fairly sharp useable shots at 1/8th and that has an older version of IS. The 24-105 has pretty decent IS too. Even the old 18-55 kit lens did alright.

What I find is that while IS cannot truly replace a tripod or monopod it does reduce the amount of camera shake to the point where it is at least acceptable for web use. The shake is still there and likely most of it from the mirror which makes me wonder actually ... I know the 70-200 IS has an anti mirror slap vibration function, maybe the 35 doesn't have that so there is a limit to how effective it can be?

 

[Ruined]

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Yeah I agree that the stabilization effect is more noticeable with a 70-200 than with the wider focal lengths but with my 17-55 @ 17mm I was getting fairly sharp useable shots at 1/8th and that has an older version of IS. The 24-105 has pretty decent IS too. Even the old 18-55 kit lens did alright.

What I find is that while IS cannot truly replace a tripod or monopod it does reduce the amount of camera shake to the point where it is at least acceptable for web use. The shake is still there and likely most of it from the mirror which makes me wonder actually ... I know the 70-200 IS has an anti mirror slap vibration function, maybe the 35 doesn't have that so there is a limit to how effective it can be?

Also, it may be a personal thing based on how you use it. I do agree that I was able to get usable 1/8 shots with the 35mm IS, but the issue for me is that they were not significantly more usable than when I just shot with IS disabled. It wasn't like one was razor sharp and the other was terrible, generally I found both were usable but not super sharp. Again, unlike the 70-200 which can be super sharp several stops down.

I thought IS was making a big difference with the 35 IS and slower shutter speeds until I turned it off and shot slower shutter speeds quite a bit without it, then I found the difference was not really significant unlike the 70-200. This of course was real world shooting and not myself trying to purposely induce shake into the shot to see the performance of IS. There was a big difference with a monopod, tripod, of course.

I am not sure the reason why for this, but the 35 IS is supposed to have the same advanced IS system the 100L does - which was supposed to be more advanced than the one in the 70-200. So, my guess is that Canon's IS system can only do so much when the shutter speeds get really slow, even if it is only 2 stops down... Which does sort of make sense if you think about the way optical IS works.

However, I do frequently use the IS in the 35mm to do panning shots. It assists in keeping the vertical axis stable and I have gotten some really cool and crisp panning shots in doing so. The 35 f/2 IS USM is my go-to panning lens due to the IS and flexible wide-normal focal length, I will pick it over the 24L, 50L, 16-35L II, 24-70L II, etc... I don't shoot video really so that part is less useful to me.

It is of course possible Canon will improve up on the system for the 16-35 f/4L IS - we will see. Personally I won't be able to test this lens though, as the 16-35 II is a better fit for what I shoot.