More Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Talk [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

We’re hearing more about a new EF 16-35 f/2.8L III, which is expected in 2016 along with one of Canon’s new “pro” body announcements. We’re not sure if it’ll arrive around the time of the EOS-1D X replacement in early 2016 or the EOS 5D Mark III replacement later in the year.</p>
<p>We’re told the new lens will be slightly longer and a bit heavier, and will retain the 82mm filter thread diameter of the current lens. Weather sealing, durability and optics will get obvious improvements. The lens hood will also be unique to the new lens, but we weren’t told what “unique” meant.</p>
<p>There is little to no chance of IS making its way into the lens. You can get the EF 16-35 f/4L IS if you want stabilization.</p>
<p>You can see the latest patent for the optical formula <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-16-35-f2-8l-iii/">here</a>, I think we’ll probably see another one before the announcement.</p>

 

[Chaitanya]

Does unique mean a small window to operate the CPl?

 

[scottkinfw]

A quick question for lovers of this lens.

I have the 24-70 2.8L II. I love this lens. There is a lot of overlap between the two. What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?

Thanks for the info.

Sek

 

[addola]

A quick question for lovers of this lens.

I have the 24-70 2.8L II. I love this lens. There is a lot of overlap between the two. What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?

Thanks for the info.

Sek

24-70 f/2.8 is your walk around lens. 16-35 f/2.8 is for ultra-wide shots (like basketball under the ring and dramatic close ups). I personally own Tamron 24-70 VC for all-around zoom and the 17-40 f/4 for wide-angle landscape shots. I'd replace the 17-40 with a 16-35, but maybe I'd go with the f/4 since my landscape shots are at f/5.6 or f/8.

I like the way Nikon does it: 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 all in f/2.8 max aperture. The problem with Nikon is that you can not screw filters on the 14-24.

Canon could do a 16-24 to make you happy. There's also the 11-24 f/4, but it's still a very expensive lens.

 

[StoneColdCoffee]

I cant wait for this lens. I wish it would have stayed the same size but now that I have the mammoth Tamron15-30, I will be accustomed to the large and heavy size ;D . I'm hoping this lens will outperform the Tamron 15-30 and Nikons 14-24. Then ill sell mine and purchase this.

as for the 24-70 ... 20mm is much wider than 24, and 16 is much better than 20. you can rent a 16-35II and go out and shoot around. I think you'll like it. I loved the 10-22mm as well. its a great lens. that setup worked well (canon 10-22, 24-105/f4, and a 70-200/2.8II) now I have (Tamron 15-30, canon 50/1.4, macro 100/2.8, and the 70-200) that gets done most everything I need. Although I miss the 24-105 because its a great lens for full frame walk around.

 

[takesome1]

What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?

Question #1 is obvious 16-23mm range
Question #2 I sold my 16-35mm because I never used it. If you need a wider lens then there is a reason to have both. Even if you need the wider range you need to look at what you need the wider range for since there are other options in that range.

 

[gsealy]

A quick question for lovers of this lens.

I have the 24-70 2.8L II. I love this lens. There is a lot of overlap between the two. What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?

Thanks for the info.

Sek

I have both of these lens. Some people have criticized the 16-35 f2.8 II. But my copy has been really good. I get sharp pictures with great color. I use it mainly for landscape shooting. I do a lot of early morning or early evening shooting in this realm so the f2.8 really helps. I doubt I will get the 'III' as it will likely be in the $1500 range, and I can't justify that cost over what I already have.

I use the 24-70 2.8L II for situations involving people in fairly close proximity. The added focal length allows me to zoom in a bit for more facial shots and yet is wide enough to capture the surrounding context, if I want. It is really sharp. Just last weekend I did a professional shoot of several 'models' in various settings using the 5DIII/24-70 and it worked out really well. Every shot was a keeper. The 16-35 would not have worked nearly as well.

So those are just my thoughts and my use cases.

 

[NancyP]

I think that all lenses under 24mm are specialty-use lenses. If you do a lot of wide angle work, grand landscapes with interesting foregrounds, auroras or Milky Way, or work in tight spaces (interiors, slot canyons, etc), wider than 24mm is a good option. Wide-angle composition is a specialty unto itself, and I am still not quite getting it.

16-35mm f/2.8 is an indoor event lens, a PJ lens, an astro-landscape lens - situations where one either needs as much light as possible to stop action, or as much light as possible to even see the subject (stars). 16-35mm f/4 is lighter weight, better suited to a landscape lens where f/8 is the likely aperture and where your camera is likely on tripod. If you shoot landscape at 24mm a lot and wish for more depth of field, a tilt shift lens might be for you. That's my gear lust lens - 24mm f/3.5 TS-E.

For some wide angle landscapes, one can use the 24-70mm (or 24mm tilt shift)and just do panoramic shooting and merge.

 

[bseitz234]

I doubt I will get the 'III' as it will likely be in the $1500 range, and I can't justify that cost over what I already have.

This strikes me as really optimistic- the current one is listed at $1499 on Canon USA, so I imagine a v3 would be more likely $1800-$2000...

 

[ahsanford]

A quick question for lovers of this lens.

I have the 24-70 2.8L II. I love this lens. There is a lot of overlap between the two. What are the benefits to the 16-35 2.9 over the 24-70? Any reason to own both?

Thanks for the info.

Sek

It's common to own both. The 24-70 is my staple walkaround/general use lens, and the 16-35 is a go-to for landscapes for me. But both of mine are the f/4L IS versions.

In the f/2.8 world, I see the 16-35 being commonly used to capture the huddle at the end of an (American) football game when coaches and players meet to shake hands. It's also used at wedding receptions, sports in close quarters (mountain biking), etc. It's also used for astro work, but Canon has long struggled to provide a sharp + fast + coma free lens for that application -- there are far better lenses for astro than the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

As far as the range overlap, it depends. I love the 16-35 range, as shoot from 28-35 a lot and don't always want to bring my 24-70 to get it. But Nikon has a very popular 14-24L f/2.8 lens that eliminates that overlap in return for a bulbous front element (makes filtering more expensive/cumbersome) but it also is critically 2mm wider. (It also was the sharpest UWA zoom on the planet for quite some time.)

- A

 

[sunnyVan]

I doubt I will get the 'III' as it will likely be in the $1500 range, and I can't justify that cost over what I already have.

This strikes me as really optimistic- the current one is listed at $1499 on Canon USA, so I imagine a v3 would be more likely $1800-$2000...

$1800-2000 at least. Possibly more. New lens at launch price is often outrageously high.

I can live with my f4 version + rokinon 14 2.8. Don't really need 2.8 that often.

 

[ahsanford]

16-35mm f/4 is lighter weight, better suited to a landscape lens where f/8 is the likely aperture and where your camera is likely on tripod.

Yeah, optically the 16-35 f/4L IS absolutely mops the floor with the 16-35 f/2.8L II. If you're in the market for an L zoom, it used to be an easy decision -- buy the f/2.8 to future proof for all possible applications. But the market is a shade more crowded now.

11-24 f/4L -- expensive and front-filtering is complicated/expensive; I see this lens being meant for interiors and architecture, but you certainly could shoot landscapes with it. If you need to shoot 11-14mm, this is your only (rectilinear) choice.

16-35 f/2.8L II -- it can technically do everything, but it just doesn't do it all brilliantly. So I see this lens as the 'devil you know' for an f/2.8 wide zoom use where AF has got to be first party rock solid -- up-close sports/action in particular.

16-35 f/4L IS -- landscapes landscapes landscapes. It does other things, but landscapers needed to change their shorts when Canon released this. It was a massive sharpness improvement, and you didn't need to carry f/2.8 lens weight around when you shoot f/8 - f/14 all the time. A stellar lens, and a stellar value.

17-40 f/4L -- this is your budget play, your first L lens, etc. Wide + Fairly sharp + sealed + well built --> is well suited for landscapes, but certainly could serve as a wider walkaround for those who like wider FOVs.

Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC (IS) -- a big, heavy tool, but it's very sharp, very wide, has f/2.8 and has IS. Front filtering is a handful as there are no threads, but like the 11-24 it can be done if you don't mind the trouble. Also, I seem to recall it's a workable zoom option for astro due to fairly well managed coma. This is a great overall value if you don't need first-party AF confidence or screw in filtering.

There's also an f/2.8 Tokina, but I've read nothing about it.

- A

 

[tomscott]

No IS is still a strange choice to me. How much more weight does IS actually create? With the Tammy 15-30 having IS and it being a pretty good performer for a good price this lens will have to blow away the competition because it will more than likely be expensive.

This lens is most likely to be used by event, wedding, photo journos where shooting in low light is pretty regular, F2.8 at times isn't always that fast.

For landscape and Astro there isn't much need for IS as a tripod will be used but for the above… F4 is too slow for wedding and event work.

 

[ahsanford]

No IS is still a strange choice to me. How much more weight does IS actually create?

Canon has been following a nutty strategy of IS for f/4 in the 16-35, 24-70/105 lenses but not with the f/2.8 lenses.

IS helps in low light / handheld situations if your subject isn't moving, and that's true for an f/2.8 lens or an f/4 lens.

The only argument I can think of to back Canon's reasoning for this is that the f/4 lenses need IS more to keep the ISO levels from getting stratospheric.

- A

 

[nightscape123]

I love my Tamron 15-30. I love the wide range of wide angle options that are out there now though. In a year or 4 I might consider this lens as the price comes down. It can be a pain to lug around all the stuff I need to use filers on the tamron. However it all depends on the coma performance of this lens. My tamron is almost coma free, and canon doesn't have a great history with coma control.

 

[ahsanford]

I love my Tamron 15-30. I love the wide range of wide angle options that are out there now though. In a year or 4 I might consider this lens as the price comes down. It can be a pain to lug around all the stuff I need to use filers on the tamron. However it all depends on the coma performance of this lens. My tamron is almost coma free, and canon doesn't have a great history with coma control.

If you're an astro shooter, you're kinda screwed. Wide + fast + coma free + sharp = good luck with that. So things like '"how's the AF?" or "can you thread-in filters?" become distant priorities to coma coma coma. That seems to be the back-breaker for so many f/2.8 and faster wide lenses for astro.

I joked the new Sigma 20 f/1.4 Art -- which might have a number of uses, but astro was clearly the breakthrough opportunity there -- would live or die almost entirely due to its coma performance. Turns out the coma was not great. Lens was DOA for many based on that one test.

- A

 

[preppyak]

This strikes me as really optimistic- the current one is listed at $1499 on Canon USA, so I imagine a v3 would be more likely $1800-$2000...

MSRP of the 16-35 II was $1,599...they've generally stayed within $100-200 of that price point. So I cant imagine more than $1799.

No IS is still a strange choice to me. How much more weight does IS actually create?

In the 70-200 f/2.8, the difference is 44oz vs 53oz, so 1/2lb. Hard to say if wide angle would create a bigger or smaller difference. But, 1/2lb would be a BIG deal in that focal range, since the lens only weighs 2lbs to begin with. Adding 25% weight isnt minor.

I think it mostly depends on use cases. Most of the f/2.8 use cases are shutter speed needs. So IS isnt practical for sports or astro. And for event work, you're likely supplementing with flash anyway, so f/4 vs f/2.8 isnt deal-breaking. I'd say its the PJ's that might actually have the use case; but not sure they are a large enough group to justify the extra R&D and cost.

 

[ahsanford]

This strikes me as really optimistic- the current one is listed at $1499 on Canon USA, so I imagine a v3 would be more likely $1800-$2000...

MSRP of the 16-35 II was $1,599...they've generally stayed within $100-200 of that price point. So I cant imagine more than $1799.

No IS is still a strange choice to me. How much more weight does IS actually create?

In the 70-200 f/2.8, the difference is 44oz vs 53oz, so 1/2lb. Hard to say if wide angle would create a bigger or smaller difference. But, 1/2lb would be a BIG deal in that focal range, since the lens only weighs 2lbs to begin with. Adding 25% weight isnt minor.

I think it mostly depends on use cases. Most of the f/2.8 use cases are shutter speed needs. So IS isnt practical for sports or astro. And for event work, you're likely supplementing with flash anyway, so f/4 vs f/2.8 isnt deal-breaking. I'd say its the PJ's that might actually have the use case; but not sure they are a large enough group to justify the extra R&D and cost.

However, IS makes an easier 'this is the most capable lens' sell to consumers. For non-specialists that don't have a speed or astro need -- those who just want a great 16-35 lens -- buying an f/2.8 IS lens is a future-proofing call. You can simply do more with that lens if you don't mind the price and weight.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

IS would be great, but not a deal breaker for those shooting moving targets, such as wedding guests, photojournalism subjects. Also, 16-30mm, where I'd be using it most of the time, isn't all that susceptible to blur. But it would be very, very nice to have. And as I get older, even more so.

By the way, how many other Canon lenses have a "III" as part of the name?

 

[ahsanford]

By the way, how many other Canon lenses have a "III" as part of the name?

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
And the two teleconverters

I think that's it. But I'd imagine that Canon would indeed go with the 'III' here for the new 16-35L for the aforementioned 'IS isn't part of it' reasons.

- A