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

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?

Agree. I think 77mm is the new F/4 zoom lens standard and 82mm is the new F/2.8 zoom lens standard.

Primes similarly are odd ducks and also offer the odd inconvenience to us:

24L 77mm
35L 72mm
50L 72mm
85L 72mm
100L 67mm
135L 72mm
200L 72mm (the never-referred-to 200mm F/2.8L II, not the legendary White Gun-Trumpet of Bokeh, the 200m F/2L IS)

FWIW, I'd like to stay a 3 diameter filter guy if I can. Right now I'm 58/77 for everything I own except for the 100L. Here's hoping this new F/4L will be the same.

- A

 

[scyrene]

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?

Agree. I think 77mm is the new F/4 zoom lens standard and 82mm is the new F/2.8 zoom lens standard.

Primes similarly are odd ducks and also offer the odd inconvenience to us:

24L 77mm
35L 72mm
50L 72mm
85L 72mm
100L 67mm
135L 72mm
200L 72mm (the never-referred-to 200mm F/2.8L II, not the legendary White Gun-Trumpet of Bokeh, the 200m F/2L IS)

FWIW, I'd like to stay a 3 diameter filter guy if I can. Right now I'm 58/77 for everything I own except for the 100L. Here's hoping this new F/4L will be the same.

- A

I don't use filters much, so maybe I'm missing something. But I have an ND filter that I got for the 24-105 (which is 77mm if I remember rightly), and got some step-down rings so it fits the other lenses I have. Is there any reason to have a filter for each lens? The only things I can think of are marginal time saving, not having to swap from one to another, and I suppose those people who have clear/UV filters for protection (not my thing) would want each lens covered.

 

[wsmith96]

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

As an owner of the current EF-S 10-22, the STM lens here isn't very interesting to me. If/when I switch to ff though, the 16-35 would be attractive if the price/performance is right.

 

[mrsfotografie]

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??

Yeah, looks like Canon is making a range of consumer level 'L' lenses in full frame format, to suit the 6D

 

[mrsfotografie]

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.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Whereas I understand this point made by 24-105 F/4L IS vs. 24-70 F/4L IS folks -- that the added length is vital for some folks -- I don't in this comparison. If this new lens happens, which it looks like it will, I expect the 5mm of length some 17-40 F/4L folks are losing to be absolutely crushed by the general improvement in IQ.

Even in its sweet spot (test data says F/5.6-F.8, landscapers in this forum always speak about F/11 it seems), the 17-40L shows that it is a good-but-not-great lens. Yes, people are taking stellar pictures with it today, but they are doing so within the framework of limitations that lens shackles the photographer with -- soft corners in particular, even when stopped way down. Given the clear IQ upsides of all of Canon's recent lens offerings* -- the 24-70 F/2.8 II, the 24-70 F/4, the non-L IS refreshes, etc. -- we should be expecting a much sharper lens than its predecessor.

That, in my mind, it worth losing 5mm for. But I understand others' opinions may vary depending on what they shoot.

*Just curious: We certainly enjoy making fun of Canon's choices of what to design, but what's the last EF lens Canon put out that had a predecessor (or something similar to predecessor) where the new lens didn't perform well? It may not have had the FL, max aperture or IS you wanted, but when's the last time Canon released an EF dud of a lens IQ-wise?

- A

 

[chromophore]

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.

 

[Viggo]

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.

Whereas I understand this point made by 24-105 F/4L IS vs. 24-70 F/4L IS folks -- that the added length is vital for some folks -- I don't in this comparison. If this new lens happens, which it looks like it will, I expect the 5mm of length some 17-40 F/4L folks are losing to be absolutely crushed by the general improvement in IQ.

Even in its sweet spot (test data says F/5.6-F.8, landscapers in this forum always speak about F/11 it seems), the 17-40L shows that it is a good-but-not-great lens. Yes, people are taking stellar pictures with it today, but they are doing so within the framework of limitations that lens shackles the photographer with -- soft corners in particular, even when stopped way down. Given the clear IQ upsides of all of Canon's recent lens offerings* -- the 24-70 F/2.8 II, the 24-70 F/4, the non-L IS refreshes, etc. -- we should be expecting a much sharper lens than its predecessor.

That, in my mind, it worth losing 5mm for. But I understand others' opinions may vary depending on what they shoot.

*Just curious: We certainly enjoy making fun of Canon's choices of what to design, but what's the last EF lens Canon put out that had a predecessor (or something similar to predecessor) where the new lens didn't perform well? It may not have had the FL, max aperture or IS you wanted, but when's the last time Canon released an EF dud of a lens IQ-wise?

- A

I didn't think the 24-70 f4 L IS offered any improvement in IQ over the 24-105, except a better mag ratio. At least that's my understanding of why people didn't get that lens and was hating on it.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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.

I would trade 5mm at the long end for 1mm more on the wide end any day, whether it helps performance or not

 

[Viggo]

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.

I repeat, 16mm with 4 stops of IS would have made almost all my shots from Rome at 160 ISO instead of 2500 ISO, how is that not a useful advantage??

And have we forgot about the 24-70 f2.8 mk2. And the 24 and 28 f2.8 are the same apertures they always been, but now much higher IQ, same with the 35 f2 IS.

But I will agree with you that Sigma is having the edge now, the 50 art does destroy anything else and I love it. If Sigma keeps making that quality lenses at those prices and release a 14-24 f2.8, 135 f2 (1.8) OS, Canon WILL be in trouble they never had to deal with just a a short while back since the release of the 35 Art.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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

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.

+1

IS is useful, but people here seem to overstate its utility. The only benefit of IS on a UWA is what others have mentioned previously (Indoor architectural shots where tripods aren't allowed) and then video application.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

One theory, and I lack data for it: IS is more valuable to a larger market of shooters, i.e. amateurs with Rebels, enthusiasts with 70Ds, etc. Speaking to the former group, most people who are just getting into photography want a sharp image much much more than they want a shallow DOF.

So one might argue -- just conjecture here -- that in 20 years, we still won't have an F/2 zoom or a native Canon EF mount F/0.9 50mm or 85mm lens, but we likely will have a host of F/4 lenses with 5, 6, 7 stops of IS. You may not like it, but I think that's where it's going...

...at least with Canon. I'm enjoying immensely the journey of Sigma from budget / niche-filling lens designers into a braver no-one's-ever-done-this-before sort of company. Love it love it love it.

- A

 

[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 very curious about the quality

and price.

would be nice when canons suprises us with a price like sigma... well i can dream.

Hey they did with the pancake....
And the ef-m 11-22 is pretty great bang for buck

Wow it's been a while since they released a great lens
So underwhelmed by all this middle of the road gear they are putting out
At way inflated prices

 

[Random Orbits]

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.

Not really slower than the lenses they replaced. 24, 28 and 35mm IS lenses replaced those of the same aperture. They offer IQ upgrades and IS to what they replaced. They were not designed to replace the 24L II or the 35L. Like others, I don't think the 16-35 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 16-35 f/2.8 II. I think it'll eventually replace the 17-40 just as we might be seeing the 24-70 f/4 IS replace the 24-105 f/4 IS. I just hope that the 16-35 III will be able to retain the 82mm filters... not looking forward to 95mm filters.

The 24-70 f/2.8 II has the best IQ of any mid-range zoom. I expect the new wave of L primes that fall along that FL range to be better than the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

I repeat, 16mm with 4 stops of IS would have made almost all my shots from Rome at 160 ISO instead of 2500 ISO, how is that not a useful advantage??

This is an old argument, and it's not one you win in a forum (Also: using UV filters on lenses, 24-70 F/4 vs. 24-105 F/4, etc.).

In this case, it all depends on what you shoot. If what you shoot is stationary, IS is like speed, and it is loved. Or, in comparison to what a non-IS lens would have to do, that IS buys you flexibility (like your Rome example) -- you can walk down the ISO stop-for-stop with the amount of IS, or you can stop down aperture at the same ISO and gain more working depth of field in (generally) a sharper aperture than having to shoot wide open.

So for you (and for me), IS is a massive win.

But if you are shooting moving targets or want tiny DOF, faster glass is the better call. An F/4 IS lens will capture subject movement that an F/1.4, F/2, etc. would not. In those cases, aperture trumps IS and you need to pay the big bucks for the fast glass.

- A

 

[Viggo]

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.

I repeat, 16mm with 4 stops of IS would have made almost all my shots from Rome at 160 ISO instead of 2500 ISO, how is that not a useful advantage??

This is an old argument, and it's not one you win in a forum (Also: using UV filters on lenses, 24-70 F/4 vs. 24-105 F/4, etc.).

In this case, it all depends on what you shoot. If what you shoot is stationary, IS is like speed, and it is loved. Or, in comparison to what a non-IS lens would have to do, that IS buys you flexibility (like your Rome example) -- you can walk down the ISO stop-for-stop with the amount of IS, or you can stop down aperture at the same ISO and gain more working depth of field in (generally) a sharper aperture than having to shoot wide open.

So for you (and for me), IS is a massive win.

But if you are shooting moving targets or want tiny DOF, faster glass is the better call. An F/4 IS lens will capture subject movement that an F/1.4, F/2, etc. would not. In those cases, aperture trumps IS and you need to pay the big bucks for the fast glass.

- A

So really what's your point? I can't think of a single lens other than the 200 f1.8 that's been replaced by a slower lens?

The 16-35 f4 L IS is alongside the other f4 zooms available, not to replace the 16-35 f2.8 II as stated above her by others. You have the option to buy a fast lens already and there will come new lenses with the same aperture.

 

[ahsanford]

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

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.

+1

IS is useful, but people here seem to overstate its utility. The only benefit of IS on a UWA is what others have mentioned previously (Indoor architectural shots where tripods aren't allowed) and then video application.

Disagree, respectfully. Those might be the only professional needs for UWA with IS, but it has practical uses for enthusiasts as well. And I'm not a pro, but I'd imagine the pros in this forum could conjure up more uses of IS with UWA.

If I'm shooting handheld without a flash (i.e. often), and I had two options, let's say at 24mm, I could use a 24mm F/1.4L II or a 16-35mm F/4L IS.

For a non-moving target (i.e. 95% of what I shoot), the IS lens -- 2 stops of glass slower but 4 stops of IS 'faster' -- buys me the opportunity to walk the ISO down away from a noisy place or the opportunity to keep the ISO where it was and stop the aperture down to a sharper place with more working DOF. So, in that case, IS has bought me flexibility / elbow room for my composition and image quality.

It's not right / it's not wrong -- it's just valuable for what I shoot. It may not be so for you, esp. if you are shooting stills of moving things without a flash (which many on this forum are).

But here's the ruthless math of it: IS is easier/cheaper/lighter to improve than aperture is. So, as I just said above, expect lots of F/4, F/2.8 lenses with 4, 5, 6, 7 stops of IS as time goes on. For that reason alone, this trend of IS isn't going away one bit -- it will be applied nearly everywhere in a few years.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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

I didn't think the 24-70 f4 L IS offered any improvement in IQ over the 24-105, except a better mag ratio. At least that's my understanding of why people didn't get that lens and was hating on it.

There are nice things you get with the 24-70 F/4L IS for losing that 35mm of length:

• Sharper
• Less distortion
• The 0.7x MM makes it a very serviceable macro if you don't want to bring one
• Lighter (very slightly) - obviously, less important, it's not a huge difference like comparing an F/2.8 to an F/4 lens
• Shorter (slightly) - obviously, less important

Data: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests
(Photozone largely agrees with this)

Again, 24-105 folks legitimately can cry bloody murder that with the same development money, Canon should have made a 24-105 version II, but I really like my 24-70 F/4 for the above reasons. Your mileage with it may vary.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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

So really what's your point? I can't think of a single lens other than the 200 f1.8 that's been replaced by a slower lens?

The 16-35 f4 L IS is alongside the other f4 zooms available, not to replace the 16-35 f2.8 II as stated above her by others. You have the option to buy a fast lens already and there will come new lenses with the same aperture.

The point is: F/4 IS vs. F/2.8 non-IS isn't a matter of better or worse -- they are different lenses for different needs.

When people throw their hands up and ask 'why the hell is Canon making this?', I am trying to give an answer. And my answer is 'Because another part of the photography/videography world wants it, and here's why.' I'm not politicking for Canon, I'm just sharing my perspective as to why they might be doing this.

- A

 

[Slyham]

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

I have been saving for a uwa for a crop camera for a while. It is always nice when there are more choices.

I think the 10-18, 18-55, and 55-250 all STM and IS with a Rebel with DPAF would be a killer kit for the amateur photographer/videographer.