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

I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?
Is it to replace the 17-40 F4? If so and assuming this is for landscape then it will need to be very good quality as the 17-40 is fairly cheap these days. And again assuming this is aimed at landscape/building photography...do you need IS?

If it is to replace the 16-35 F2.8.....with an F4 lens? Sure the IS is welcome for handholding shots...but that will never replace faster glass when shooting low light (thinking weddings and events etc).

Seems like it is stuck in between two lens (16-35 F2.8 & 17-40 F4) to me??

It absolutely is in-between two lenses. That's fine, as neither are sharp in the corners. If it's a real product (and it's sizing up to be so) I would liken this lens to the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS -- a lens in-between two current ones that will be hated at first glance for 'why did they make this?' reasons, and then (by some) loved for the IQ it delivers. This lens will be sharper than the current wide zooms Canon sells and that's a good thing.

Also, not everyone is shooting landscapes at F/11 with wide zooms -- a modern autofocusing wide lens that is center sharp wide open and possibly corner sharp by F/5.6 or so would be terrific in my book.

So I'm not looking at a 16-35 F/4 IS as being on- or off-target; I'm looking at it as an improvement. We should welcome that, even if it's not the lens we think we need right now.

- A

 

[RGF]

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

Price....
Expecting the 10-18mm to be twice the price of the 18-55mm - due to a smaller market, than the kit lens
Expecting the 16-35mm f4 IS to start just a tad more costly than the 16-35mm f2.8 II, dropping to about 4/5th's of the price, then a new 16-35mm f2.8 III coming in at nearly twice the price of the f4.0 in about 12 months... Both as sharp as current primes

if that is the case, they introduced them in the wrong order. Introduce the more expensive one first, get people who need sharpness, not F2.8, to buy the $3,000 lens Then offer the cheaper alternative.

Based upon this lens being introduced I don't think there will be 16-35III, rather some other lens that is compelling for people to upgrade (perhaps a 14-24)???

 

[Random Orbits]

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

Wondering how the 16-35 f/4 will affect the sale of the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses. How many people would value the wider focal length range compared to an extra stop? Granted the 24 and 28mm lenses are much smaller, but stilll...

 

[Cory]

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

Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22? I think I might like to have that (to complement my 35 2.0 IS).

 

[Dylan777]

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

4stop IS & sharp as Nik 14-24 or better............I'm in

Can't wait to see MTF chart. Body looks like 24-70 II which very promising.

 

[Lightmaster]

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

Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22?

well... what do you think?

 

[Random Orbits]

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

4stop IS & sharp as Nik 14-24 or better............I'm in

Can't wait to see MTF chart. Body looks like 24-70 II which very promising.

I find that IS isn't as effective at these shorter FLs. I played with the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS lens, and I can get sharp pics at around 1/20s with IS off without too much difficulty. 4 stops from that would be close to 1s, and those were far from being sharp with any type of consistency...

 

[Dylan777]

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

Hmm. So Sigma gives us sharper, higher quality and cheaper and Canon's market response.. ermm, more of exactly the same as before?

Don't you think a bit early for this? Let's wait for the MTF.

 

[lol]

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

Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22? I think I might like to have that (to complement my 35 2.0 IS).

It is rather early since we know practically nothing other than the claimed leaked image.

Just saw it pointed out elsewhere it has a plastic mount, if that may alter expectations...

 

[cellomaster27]

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

YES!! FINALLY A LENS. NO TWO LENSES FROM CANON!

all this time this year was...sigma, sigma, sigma, rokinon.. and CR1's. It's not anything revolutionary but I have to say that these lenses are going to find spots in photographers bags soon. Especially the 10-18mm efs considering a good price point.

 

[Dylan777]

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

4stop IS & sharp as Nik 14-24 or better............I'm in

Can't wait to see MTF chart. Body looks like 24-70 II which very promising.

I find that IS isn't as effective at these shorter FLs. I played with the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS lens, and I can get sharp pics at around 1/20s with IS off without too much difficulty. 4 stops from that would be close to 1s, and those were far from being sharp with any type of consistency...

I don't have steady hands. Without IS, the slowest shutter speed I'm willing to shoot is 1/60. Be able to shoot 1/10 and still getting sharp image would be a dream for many of us. It's nice to see Canon starts realeasing new lenses. Hope they will bring their best 50mm to the game.

 

[JonAustin]

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

I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS? Seems like it is stuck in between two lens (16-35 F2.8 & 17-40 F4) to me??

I think that the 17-40 will continue on in the active product line for a few more years; it may eventually phase out. The next 16-35/2.8 will be equipped with IS (just like the next 24-70/2.8 will).

My 17-40 turns 11 this month. I don't use it nearly as much as I used to in my crop days (not much of a wide-angle guy), but I'll replace it with the 16-35/4 IS in a couple of years, after its price has settled, and a year rolls around when there's nothing else I want to buy. (Like the 35/2 IS this year.)

 

[MichaelHodges]

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

This 16-35 IS looks amazing. But I have a very good copy of a 17-40.

Nice to see new lenses people will actually buy, though.

 

[Canon 14-24]

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

I think there is a healthy market for all of the EF wide angle zoom lenses (17-40, 16-35 2.8 (non-is) and the 16-35 f4 with is). Nikon currently has 4 wide angle zooms available on the market and haven't phased out their older 17-35 2.8 non-is and have added a cheaper version like the 17-40 equivalent onto the market. One for cheapie budgets that don't want to cough up more than 1k on a zoom and the other segement above 1k and another over 2k.

Just like the rebel cheapie market, 70d, 7d, and 6d.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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

I think there is a healthy market for all of the EF wide angle zoom lenses (17-40, 16-35 2.8 (non-is) and the 16-35 f4 with is). Nikon currently has 4 wide angle zooms available on the market and haven't phased out their older 17-35 2.8 non-is and have added a cheaper version like the 17-40 equivalent onto the market. One for cheapie budgets that don't want to cough up more than 1k on a zoom and the other segement above 1k and another over 2k.

Just like the rebel cheapie market, 70d, 7d, and 6d.

I would be happy to see Canon have the same range of WA offerings. But the real question is whether this new 16-35 f/4 will be around $1,300, or priced simply ridiculous.

 

[Murilo_mms]

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

Definetely I´ll buy 16-35mm 4IS if it costs below U$ 1,300.

 

[Canon 14-24]

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

I would be happy to see Canon have the same range of WA offerings. But the real question is whether this new 16-35 f/4 will be around $1,300, or priced simply ridiculous.

I don't think they will push the envelope past $1699.99 as the Canon 16-35 2.8. However the Nikon offering being at $1250-ish, I think Canon can/will push the envelope of the initial offering price to higher than $1300 maybe $1399 or maybe even $1499.

 

[tron]

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

That's the reason it looks fake to me..

The barrel looks less fat than the 24-70II, the depth of the zoom/focus are different but the real clincher that this is real is the forward facing lens surround which doesn't look like the 24-70II to me... 77mm ? I hope not, I'm invested in 82mm now

82mm filter thread for an f/4 lens?

 

[ahsanford]

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

I would be happy to see Canon have the same range of WA offerings. But the real question is whether this new 16-35 f/4 will be around $1,300, or priced simply ridiculous.

I don't think they will push the envelope past $1699.99 as the Canon 16-35 2.8. However the Nikon offering being at $1250-ish, I think Canon can/will push the envelope of the initial offering price to higher than $1300 maybe $1399 or maybe even $1499.

Depends on how much better the optics are, but I think your intuition is probably not far off.

An example that would be dead-on to what you are saying:

The coexistence of the 70-200 F/2.8L (non-IS) and the 70-200 F/4L IS at nearly the same price. IQ of the two (from what I've read) is very close, so it's a value proposition of the [speed] + [opportunity to use 2x T/C with retained AF] of the F/2.8 versus the [IS] + [lighter] + [smaller] + [10 years newer] of the F/4L IS. Canon apparently thinks those combinations of features are of equal value to photographers and price them accordingly.

An example that would speak against what you are saying:

24-70 F/2.8L I or II vs. the 24-70 F/4L IS. Take away the 2x T/C opportunity (not compatible at this length) and my prior comparison of speed vs. lighter / IS still works. But in these cases, the IQ is not the same between these lenses, and the prices are therefore quite different.

- A

 

[infared]

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



My thoughts, exactly.
I've bought a 17-40 for less then $500 recently, in perfect condition. I know it have some drawbacks, and not perfect. So is 16-35II, compared to 35L I own.
That new lenses should be really, really sharp and rise the quality mark. Otherwise I'd prefer primes over them.
[/quote]

How do you compare a 35L to the 16-35 f/2.8II? One thing that the 16-35mm can do a whole lot better than the 35L is 16-34mm!!!!!!!! LOL..you had to know you were walking into that one! ;D