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

[Zv]

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?

In one way they already updated the 70-200s on this list when they added IS to them

The 1200mm was a one off, highly specialized, rare and expensive beast, you can't really put that one on the list since no one is expecting it to be updated. (Are they??)

The 200mm f/2.8 is rarely talked about, I guess they could stick IS in there and improve the optics but then you might as well just buy the excellent 70-200LII.

I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?

 

[dolina]

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

I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?

I'm angling on a revised 135 & 100-400 or 400/5.6.

Gave up on a 35/1.4 as I love my 40/2.8 pancake and and I just do much macro much.

 

[mycanonphotos]

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

YAAAAAWWWWWWN......

 

[wickidwombat]

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

I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?

I'm angling on a revised 135 & 100-400 or 400/5.6.

Gave up on a 35/1.4 as I love my 40/2.8 pancake and and I just do much macro much.

but the 135 will be f2.8 an have IS added... sooooo not much point really since the 70-200 f2.8L IS II exists and you already have one don't you?

 

[Zv]

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.

So what? Let's say they shave 5 or even 10lbs from it. My guess is you still wont be handholding it and it will still have a front element the same diameter. That size of front element alone requires huge crystals that take about a year to grow!

Also it would be more economical to stick a 1.4x tele-convertor onto an 800mm super tele instead to give you 1120mm if that's the reach you need.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

Nice! Those are actually better charts than the 24-70 f/4 IS has!

The one thing is WHY did they have to ape Nikon and stop it at 35mm too? The MTF still look great at 35mm so I wonder if they could have allowed it to just keep extending more (which can't hurt image quality at all over 16-35) and get at least 40mm if not 50mm out of it.

Still looks to be awesome, but the 35mm chop is a pain. It would be be nice to get away with it the times you don't want to lug three lenses along. 35mm is sooo borderline. But it is possible.

I guess I will keep my 24-70 II 2.8 and sell the 24-70 f/4 IS and Samyang 14mm (although 14mm is definitely wider than 16mm....) and buy this 16-40 IS, oops darn I meant 16-35 IS.

But I fail to see why they didn't let it extend out more for 40-45mm (although perhaps it would could some internal sliding elements to strike??).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

samyang 14mm will do it for you

 

[priyadi]

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

no one has mentioned this, but 77mm filter size! yay!

that's a little surprising to me considering 24mm & 24-70mm upgrades increased filter size. now there's a good chance the 16-35/2.8 upgrade will retain 82mm filter size.

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

 

[Zv]

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

I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?

I'm angling on a revised 135 & 100-400 or 400/5.6.

Gave up on a 35/1.4 as I love my 40/2.8 pancake and and I just do much macro much.

but the 135 will be f2.8 an have IS added... sooooo not much point really since the 70-200 f2.8L IS II exists and you already have one don't you?

If it was f/2 with IS I would consider it but yeah I don't think it would go down too well if it was f/2.8 and IS. What would even be the point of that unless it was a non L dirt cheap STM plastic mount version.

 

[dolina]

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

but the 135 will be f2.8 an have IS added... sooooo not much point really since the 70-200 f2.8L IS II exists and you already have one don't you?

I was thinking of the legacy 135/2.0 towards a 135/1.8 IS or 135/2.0 IS not the 135/2.8 Soft Focus.

Sony has a 135/1.8. Although the focus motor is prehistoric the optics are pretty good at 1.8.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

The only reason the 1200 was built, actually there are two reasons. The first was the '84 LA Olympics, it was pre EOS so they were FD 1200's with a 1.4 TC built in, just like the 30 year later "innovative" 200-400 f4.

The FD 1200's were never sold though, they were always Canon property. In the late '80's Canon and Nikon got in an arms race and the genesis of that was Japanese baseball and the Koshien Stadium. Nikon ended up coming out with a manual focus 1200-1700 zoom, and it was thought that was partly because of the various patents Canon took out on the FD 1200's internal TC. Every one of the FD1200's went back to Japan and was rebodied into an EF 1200, it lost the TC in the move too.

There is an excellent article floating around about one of the Nikon 1200-1700 shooters at the Koshien Stadium.

Unless Nikon start another arms race, which has zero probability into the modern camera makers financial climate, we won't see anything over the 800mm come out, indeed it has taken Nikon a long time to bring a rival to the table for the under performing EF800 anyway.

As for half the other lenses, the 135 will never get an update, it is a sterling lens but what does it need that the beancounters wouldn't say the 70-200 f2.8 IS can do better (other than the obvious f2 in which case you already have it). Ditto the 200 f2.8, and the 70-200 2.8 L, they don't even give you a faster aperture.

The 28-300, who cares? It was a big improvement on its predecessor, the 35-350, but superzooms are really not what the L's are about, paparazzi don't care for corner sharpness, and news/event shooters don't care about resolution.

70-200 f4, bargain entry into L's, no movement for a price rise in that one.

Some of the others, the 14-24 f2.8, the 45 and 90 TS-E's I am looking forwards to.

 

[dolina]

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

^^ the same was said about the 17-40/4 not getting an IS version over the past 5 years and yet an IS version was just announced less than 3 hours ago.

Never say never, if there's demand the company will make it.

It is only a question of, when...

 

[adhocphotographer]

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

Great re-16-35 IS!

I bought a 17-40 in December for a great price... I don't use it that much here, but maybe in a couple of years i'll upgrade! New lenses are always good.... The 10-18 too.... nice price too!

 

[expatinasia]

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

US$ 1,199.00 for the new 16-35 is pretty reasonable. I just wish it was f/2.8. If they make a new f/2.8 version with improvements over the old lens, I will snap one up.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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?

In one way they already updated the 70-200s on this list when they added IS to them

The 1200mm was a one off, highly specialized, rare and expensive beast, you can't really put that one on the list since no one is expecting it to be updated. (Are they??)

The 200mm f/2.8 is rarely talked about, I guess they could stick IS in there and improve the optics but then you might as well just buy the excellent 70-200LII.

I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?

I think the 28-300L isn't going to be replaced.
Why do you think the 300 f4IS needs replacing?

I also don't see the 35L being replaced soon. Later it will have amazing IQ, nine curved blades, weather sealing, and cost north of $ 2k.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

Well, the 17-40L is pretty cheap for a pro lens at ~550 used.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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

no one has mentioned this, but 77mm filter size! yay!

that's a little surprising to me considering 24mm & 24-70mm upgrades increased filter size. now there's a good chance the 16-35/2.8 upgrade will retain 82mm filter size.

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

Those are faster lenses. I'd be surprised if they release an f/4 with 82mm filters.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

The only reason the 1200 was built, actually there are two reasons. The first was the '84 LA Olympics, it was pre EOS so they were FD 1200's with a 1.4 TC built in, just like the 30 year later "innovative" 200-400 f4.

The FD 1200's were never sold though, they were always Canon property. In the late '80's Canon and Nikon got in an arms race and the genesis of that was Japanese baseball and the Koshien Stadium. Nikon ended up coming out with a manual focus 1200-1700 zoom, and it was thought that was partly because of the various patents Canon took out on the FD 1200's internal TC. Every one of the FD1200's went back to Japan and was rebodied into an EF 1200, it lost the TC in the move too.

There is an excellent article floating around about one of the Nikon 1200-1700 shooters at the Koshien Stadium.

Unless Nikon start another arms race, which has zero probability into the modern camera makers financial climate, we won't see anything over the 800mm come out, indeed it has taken Nikon a long time to bring a rival to the table for the under performing EF800 anyway.

As for half the other lenses, the 135 will never get an update, it is a sterling lens but what does it need that the beancounters wouldn't say the 70-200 f2.8 IS can do better (other than the obvious f2 in which case you already have it). Ditto the 200 f2.8, and the 70-200 2.8 L, they don't even give you a faster aperture.

The 28-300, who cares? It was a big improvement on its predecessor, the 35-350, but superzooms are really not what the L's are about, paparazzi don't care for corner sharpness, and news/event shooters don't care about resolution.

70-200 f4, bargain entry into L's, no movement for a price rise in that one.

Some of the others, the 14-24 f2.8, the 45 and 90 TS-E's I am looking forwards to.

yeah I doubt a 1200mm, at least not unless it is some new type of lens, DO at the least

the 135mm I'd bet WILL get updated though

 

[sagittariansrock]

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

The only reason the 1200 was built, actually there are two reasons. The first was the '84 LA Olympics, it was pre EOS so they were FD 1200's with a 1.4 TC built in, just like the 30 year later "innovative" 200-400 f4.

The FD 1200's were never sold though, they were always Canon property. In the late '80's Canon and Nikon got in an arms race and the genesis of that was Japanese baseball and the Koshien Stadium. Nikon ended up coming out with a manual focus 1200-1700 zoom, and it was thought that was partly because of the various patents Canon took out on the FD 1200's internal TC. Every one of the FD1200's went back to Japan and was rebodied into an EF 1200, it lost the TC in the move too.

There is an excellent article floating around about one of the Nikon 1200-1700 shooters at the Koshien Stadium.

Unless Nikon start another arms race, which has zero probability into the modern camera makers financial climate, we won't see anything over the 800mm come out, indeed it has taken Nikon a long time to bring a rival to the table for the under performing EF800 anyway.

As for half the other lenses, the 135 will never get an update, it is a sterling lens but what does it need that the beancounters wouldn't say the 70-200 f2.8 IS can do better (other than the obvious f2 in which case you already have it). Ditto the 200 f2.8, and the 70-200 2.8 L, they don't even give you a faster aperture.

The 28-300, who cares? It was a big improvement on its predecessor, the 35-350, but superzooms are really not what the L's are about, paparazzi don't care for corner sharpness, and news/event shooters don't care about resolution.

70-200 f4, bargain entry into L's, no movement for a price rise in that one.

Some of the others, the 14-24 f2.8, the 45 and 90 TS-E's I am looking forwards to.

yeah I doubt a 1200mm, at least not unless it is some new type of lens, DO at the least

the 135mm I'd bet WILL get updated though

I'd much rather prefer an 85 f/2 IS.
Or any 85 without CA sharp wide open and not costing an arm and a leg.

 

[trstromme]

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

interesting..
as a 7D shooter they are both appealing to me, price isn't bad either.
I'm not complaining, I will get the 10-18 just because of the price for landscapes, the 16-35 as a standard zoom. I more am thinking about the reasoning for the introduction now..
Are these possible kit lenses? Is Canon interested in getting these out of the way for an introduction of one or two new APS-c cameras later (7dmkII and/or an addition to the xxx or xxxx series?)
The 16-35 is too wide for a FF kit, but for a 7D mkII it'd be perfect in my opinion. WA to normal focal length.
the 10-18 could easily be packed with a 18-55 into a dual lens uwa to short tele kit. (or tack on a 55-250 STM you'd have a complete kit that might be interesting to people with video aspirations, stabilized; from UWA to a decent telephoto, silent AF all the way..
Also on my mind, reading this and other sites have been the murmuring of significantly enhanced video features of a 7DmkII, the 10-18 would complement these rumors.)
(I don't care much for the video features though, but others do..)

my shots on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/trondstromme/