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

[sagittariansrock]

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

I read the first few pages filled with the same negative comments about f/4 zooms and IS in UWA lenses and it was refreshing to see the cogent reasoning put forward by Viggo and ahsanford.

I wrote the following a few days before the CR2 rumor of the f/4 IS UWA was posted, so it was made out of commonsense, not hindsight. I think it explains the business motive behind such a lens:

Let's look at the market-
A. Is there a room for UWA with IS?- yes- videography, high resolution of modern sensors (see wide angle IS primes). Also, corner resolution of the 17-40 could be improved and that will attract a lot of new customers.
B. Is there a room for a sharp, fast, ultrawide? - look at Nikon 14-24 sales. I don't have the numbers- but if it sells in large numbers, then that is an indication for Canon to approach that segment.

Let's look at competitors-
A. What other UWA with IS is available for canon- none.
B. Assuming, there is a market for a sharp, fast, ultrawide- is there any competition- only from some prime lenses, which are:
a) own product- 14mm II- not particularly sharp
b) Zeiss 15mm, 18mm (?) and 21mm- expensive, manual focus
c) own product- 17mm TS-E- manual focus, expensive

Take home:
A. For an ultrawide with IS- there is definitely an unmet demand. Historically, Nikon has high sales numbers for its 16-35 f/4 VR. So I think Canon can expect a large number of 16-35 II users to move to an IS lens for a low adoption cost. There will also be a small number of people upgrading from the 17-40 due to the IS and better IQ. This will include both people using it exclusively on FF, and people buying it for APS-C with an eye on potential upgrade path.
B. For a sharp, fast ultrawide- this one is less clear. Canon needs to look at the sales figures for the 14-24 and the 16-35 2.8. If there is a bigger number for the 14-24, that means lots of people are willing to pay the premium price and trade off the filter usability and range. OTOH, if the 17-35 2.8 sells better, Canon will be better off bringing out a version III of the lens, or more likely, just keep the 16-35 II around.

(by the way, the prices are off- the 17-35 2.8 costs around $1750, not $ 1950)
[p.s. I tried not to make any assumptions, including: those hankering on the CR forums for a sharp, fast UWA necessarily make up the majority of Canon's customers.]

I agree with a comment above saying a newer f/2.8 should have been released first (if at all) from Canon's perspective, because:
If they have an 16-35 f/2.8 III/14-24 f/2.8 for $ 3000 then they can raise their price point for the f/4 IS to >price of 16-35 f/2.8 II. Not so in the current scenario, because the 16-35 II will keep cannibalizing this new segment and prevent it from taking off.
This can mean one of two things:
1. Canon is not planning to bring out a newer f/2.8 zoom anytime soon- and this is more than likely. The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 came out 7 years ago, and yet Canon hasn't produced anything to compete- so it could be that the market is insignificant, or Canon R&D hasn't produced anything equal that is cost-effective. So sharp, fast UWA lovers, it might be a longer wait.
2. Canon will introduce the 4-lens design that Nikon has, and price the f/4 IS below and the fast f/2.8 above the 16-25 f/2.8 which stays on. This will introduce a scenario similar to the 70-200 zooms, which will probably be followed by the discontinuation of the cheaper f/2.8 and people just spending $$$s for the amazing IQ as we also see in the 70-200 domain.

Fingers crossed. I won't be buying an UWA anytime soon, but maybe in 2015 when the price settles down a bit. Who knows?

 

[Zv]

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

I welcome IS in a UWA. There are loads of advantages that aren't as obvious right away like when you start using filters that eat up one or two stops of light such as a CPL. We've all been there where you go from outdoors to indoors, go to take a shot and realize the polarizer is still on!

Also, I dunno about you guys but I'm shaky even at 1/50s which if we are to rely on the 1/focal length rule should be OK for 35mm shots handheld (using last decades low res camera??). I've found myself shooting at 1/10s @ 17mm and still having to bump up the ISO to get a decent amount of DOF for sunsets and blue hour shots. IS sure woulda been nice there!

There might be some who like to shoot HDR handheld or exposure blending in which case this could be just the ticket?

Second curtain sync flash also comes to mind ...

 

[Deleted member 7828]

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

Interesting.

Don't see it being an upgrade path for 16-35 2.8 owners though. Now, perhaps a 14-24 might be something to look at.

 

[wickidwombat]

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

Interesting.

Don't see it being an upgrade path for 16-35 2.8 owners though. Now, perhaps a 14-24 might be something to look at.

Maybe we will see a new sigma 12-24 f2.8 art before we see a canon...
Now wouldn't THAT be something

 

[ahsanford]

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


Can someone settle this for me? Is Nikon's 14-24 so desirous because of its sharpness or because of its FL range?

If Canon offered a new 16-35 F/2.8 III that was as sharp as Nikon's 14-24, would that be enough for you?

OR

If Canon offered a new 14-24 F/2.8 that was only as sharp as the current 16-35 F/2.8 II, would that be enough for you?

Just curious, thanks.

- A

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

No way, 24-70 f/4 IS is much better at 24mm for sure.

 

[gerlesion]

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

Its sad to see it is an L lens. I even don't need constant aperture, just need it to be sharp, filter attachable, and affordable. I wish they make something like 16-35 F4-5.6 IS, more reasonable for me. We mostly shoot at f/8 or even smaller on ultra wide for depth of filed. I dont think people will miss larger apertures. For walk around I prefer to shoot with Samyang 14mm F/2.8. Much smaller, cheaper and optically superior than 16-35 F2/8.

 

[Random Orbits]

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

Can someone settle this for me? Is Nikon's 14-24 so desirous because of its sharpness or because of its FL range?

If Canon offered a new 16-35 F/2.8 III that was as sharp as Nikon's 14-24, would that be enough for you?

OR

If Canon offered a new 14-24 F/2.8 that was only as sharp as the current 16-35 F/2.8 II, would that be enough for you?

Just curious, thanks.

- A

It should be a poll. ;D

I'd be happy if the 16-35 f/2.8 III is as good as the 24-70 f/2.8 II and still took filters. I'm also ok with using a prime for 14mm.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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

Its sad to see it is an L lens. I even don't need constant aperture, just need it to be sharp, filter attachable, and affordable. I wish they make something like 16-35 F4-5.6 IS, more reasonable for me. We mostly shoot at f/8 or even smaller on ultra wide for depth of filed. I dont think people will miss larger apertures. For walk around I prefer to shoot with Samyang 14mm F/2.8. Much smaller, cheaper and optically superior than 16-35 F2/8.

And should Canon have another lens for those who want:
1. Better ergonomics
2. Weather sealing
3. Constant aperture
??


[First off, I am really not knocking on you, even though I am quoting your post- so please don't take this personally. I am just responding to similar opinions on this thread.]
You have to realize you (or people like you) do not comprise 100% of the market.
At f/8 or narrower apertures, there already is an excellent, economical lens.
You don't "think" people will miss large apertures, and that is similar to majority of comments on these fora- speculations
But businesses do not run on speculations- you need hard data.
Companies like Canon do market research before spending $$$ on developing a product.
If they bring out a "f/4" "L " "IS" they know there is a big market for all three attributes.

Same goes for those who "do not need IS", "don't care if it's not f/2.8", "won't buy it if it doesn't go to 40mm", etc.

Me, I wanted a sharp wide angle lens, without coma, fast aperture- so I can take the occasional landscape shots and night sky shots. I bought the Rokinon 14mm. I don't care about a UWA zoom at the moment. A year ago, maybe. A year later, maybe. But you won't hear me say "I do not need an UWA zoom, so I wonder why Canon needs to bring out one".

 

[teegprice]

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

Also, It looks like its 1,199. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html

 

[Slyham]

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

It's official. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

 

[Harry Muff]

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 announced by Canon and going fo[font=tahoma, helvetica, sans-serif]r $1,199.00[/font]


[font=tahoma, helvetica, sans-serif]The 10-18 is $299[/font]

 

[gerlesion]

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

And should Canon have another lens for those who want:
1. Better ergonomics
2. Weather sealing
3. Constant aperture
??


[First off, I am really not knocking on you, even though I am quoting your post- so please don't take this personally. I am just responding to similar opinions on this thread.]
You have to realize you (or people like you) do not comprise 100% of the market.
At f/8 or narrower apertures, there already is an excellent, economical lens.
You don't "think" people will miss large apertures, and that is similar to majority of comments on these fora- speculations
But businesses do not run on speculations- you need hard data.
Companies like Canon do market research before spending $$$ on developing a product.
If they bring out a "f/4" "L " "IS" they know there is a big market for all three attributes.

Same goes for those who "do not need IS", "don't care if it's not f/2.8", "won't buy it if it doesn't go to 40mm", etc.

Me, I wanted a sharp wide angle lens, without coma, fast aperture- so I can take the occasional landscape shots and night sky shots. I bought the Rokinon 14mm. I don't care about a UWA zoom at the moment. A year ago, maybe. A year later, maybe. But you won't hear me say "I do not need an UWA zoom, so I wonder why Canon needs to bring out one".

Yeah I totally agree with you that Canon definitely has done some intensive market researches before developing a product. My point is that Canon already offered plenty of UWA L lenses for pro (17-40, 17-35, 16-35, 14mm) but none for amateurs and enthusiasts on budget. I'm "said" because, again, Canon has targeted this lens to pro. The widest economical lens for FF to date is 20mm F2/8, not even qualified for UWA.

 

[dolina]

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

MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?

1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM
1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM
1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM
1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The EF 16-35 f/4L IS supplants the 2003 - EF17-40mm f/4L USM.

Where is the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM that rivals Nikons or an L version of TS-E45mm f/2.8 & TS-E90mm f/2.8?

 

[rrcphoto]

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

MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?

1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM
1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM
1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM
1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The EF 16-35 f/4L IS supplants the 2003 - EF17-40mm f/4L USM.

Where is the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM that rivals Nikons or an L version of TS-E45mm f/2.8 & TS-E90mm f/2.8?

LOL.. I can answer some of them easily..

1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM

never.



honestly.. they are there to provide cheaper alternatives or in the case of the 1200 (i'm dying that you even included that on the list .. on two different forums.. ) well .. that's certainly not happening.

these were necessary lenses and a good UWA full frame was certainly necessarily in canon's arsenal. I would much rather have a flat front, 77mm filter 16-35, then a 14-24/2.8 equiv - but that's just me.

 

[dolina]

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

So what's the rationale behind the IS version of the EF17-40mm f/4L USM?

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

LOL.. I can answer some of them easily..

1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM

never.



honestly.. they are there to provide cheaper alternatives or in the case of the 1200 (i'm dying that you even included that on the list .. on two different forums.. ) well .. that's certainly not happening.

these were necessary lenses and a good UWA full frame was certainly necessarily in canon's arsenal. I would much rather have a flat front, 77mm filter 16-35, then a 14-24/2.8 equiv - but that's just me.

 

[rrcphoto]

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

So what's the rationale behind the IS version of the EF17-40mm f/4L USM?

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

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.

 

[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

BAM #1 in BH pre-order line for the 16-35!

I'll take this and the 14-24, who says you gotta have one or the other?!

 

[dolina]

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.