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

[YuengLinger]

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

Thanks!

 

[Sabaki]

This is my next lens

 

[RGF]

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.

DOn't want mammoth lens - avoid the 11-24. That is a monster but great range.

 

[RGF]

Like to see Canon update the 14 F2.8 with 14 F2.0. Would be larger but the extra stop helps with night skies.

The Sigma 20mm F1.4 looks promising

 

[infared]

It will be $2000!...ah.... I sold my version II to purchase the 16-35mm F/4L IS. No regrets there!!!!
I am going to be holding on to that lens....For what is on the market and the fact that it is a Canon L lens...it is a bargain for the performance that it provides. Really a sweet lens!!!!
I am glad that Canon is making the new f/2.8, though! It's good for the system and most likely will work much better with the new high-Rez bodies.
I plan on complementing my 16-35f/4L with the new Sigma 20mm f1.4 Art...hmmm..it just showed up "IN STOCK" tonight at B&H...and it's my birthday.....hmmmmmmm.....help!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

f2.8 isn't too slow for weddings at all. At 16mm, a 1/15th of a sec shutter speed at f2.8 Iso 6400...that's pretty low light. I run with a three camera / three lens set up for most weddings these days...a 16-35 f2.8 II L, a 35 f1.4 L and an 85 f1.2 IIL. I use a swapout of a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II for the reception. Been working for me for the last 5 years.

 

[adventureous]

I am so ready for this !!!!!!!! Come on Canon, give it up before April 1st !!! My MKII does a good job but seeing the newer lens quality I know the MKIII should be great! 16-35 is my most used lens for sure, and if you leave the filter size the same, I promise to be a good boy next year and buy a new camera!!!!!

 

[Etienne]

Does unique mean a small window to operate the CPl?

Maybe the lens hood will have a slot to drop in filters

 

[Etienne]

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...

yes, possibly north of $2000

 

[e_honda]

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.

For these ultra wide zooms, it looks like you're going to have to pick 2 out of 3 from IS, f2.8 and front filtering. There isn't a single ultra wide zoom in existence to have all 3 of these features.

Looks like this MK III of the Canon is going to lack IS but have front filtering, which is the opposite of the Tamron.

Main thing they need to add on the MK III is better sharpness across the frame. As it is, the MK I and MK II are just too poor on the edges/corners at wide apertures. The MK II is probably the worst "value" of all current L lenses from a price/performance standpoint.

 

[Kim Bentsen]

In a wonderful world, Canon would add IS in all new lenses like Tamron, have resolution and contrast like new Zeiss lenses and low sensor noise like Sony cameras. So why can't we have it all?

 

[Matthew Saville]

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

You, sir, are a unicorn. I'm pretty sure part of the pledge of allegiance to Canon contains the oath "I shall never inspect the corners of my wide angle lenses"...

 

[ahsanford]

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

You, sir, are a unicorn. I'm pretty sure part of the pledge of allegiance to Canon contains the oath "I shall never inspect the corners of my wide angle lenses"...

...so sayeth the astro landscaper whose personal kryptonite are red ringed lenses wider than 24mm and faster than f/4.

- A

 

[Matthew Saville]

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.

Modern times call for modern equivalents. The 24-70 2.8 mk2 is $1800, however that is down from the original $2300. Then there's the newest exotic "trophy" lens, the 11-24 f/4, at a whopping $3K. Because it goes to eleven.

If Canon were to stick with 16-35mm specifically, AND omits stabilization, they might price it at $1800. However I guarantee you they're just itching for any reason to hit their recent favorite number, $2300. Make it a 15-35 2.8, without IS, and it'll be $2K easily. Make it a 14-XX 2.8, without IS, and it'll be $2300. Add IS to either of those new optical formulas, and it'll be at least $2300.

It's all a game of projected sales volume and profit margins. And none of us know just how many units they think they can or cannot sell at X price.

Besides, unless you shoot astro, most ultra-wide photographers really don't need an f/2.8 zoom anymore, the 16-35 f/4 IS is plenty fast and wicked sharp. If you want Canon L build quality and AF reliability, it's going to cost easily 40-50% more than the Tamron 15-30.

 

[Matthew Saville]

...so sayeth the astro landscaper whose personal kryptonite are red ringed lenses wider than 24mm and faster than f/4.

- A

How dare you. ALL my Rokinon lenses have red rings on them!

 

[ahsanford]

...so sayeth the astro landscaper whose personal kryptonite are red ringed lenses wider than 24mm and faster than f/4.

- A

How dare you. ALL my Rokinon lenses have red rings on them!

I knew you would say that. Stop making fun of me and take more amazing pictures.

- A

 

[Matthew Saville]

...so sayeth the astro landscaper whose personal kryptonite are red ringed lenses wider than 24mm and faster than f/4.

- A

How dare you. ALL my Rokinon lenses have red rings on them!

I knew you would say that. Stop making fun of me and take more amazing pictures.

- A

Well played. No promises on amazing pictures though. These days I'm stuck in my studio, watching http://www.yosemiteconservancy.org/webcams. Some gorgeous scenes during the recent storms...

 

[H. Jones]

Ah, this is a struggle for me as a photojournalist.

My two main workhorses are my 24-70mm f/2.8 II and my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, which I use for basically 85% of my work. Then there's the 16-35mm f/4 IS that I love so much. I get so many unique opportunities thanks to the F/4's IS, which lets me do up to 1 second exposures handheld.

Seriously, I climbed a waterfall and could shoot 1 second exposures handheld. Can you imagine trying to use a tripod while climbing a waterfall?

So with that in mind, I feel like I'd rather stick to my 24-70mm f/2.8II for wide/fast shots, and use my 16-35mm f/4IS for wide/slow shots instead of getting a 16-35mm F/2.8 III, because that gives me a lot more creative control as a photojournalist that doesn't always have access to my tripod.

But a 16-35mm F/2.8 IS? I would sell my 16-35mm F/4 IS so quickly. That would be such a capable lens, I can't even imagine. Please? I'd pay $2300, I don't even care. It could even weigh as much as my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and I'd still buy it.

 

[Matthew Saville]

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

If you're a casual photographer, even a "traditional" landscape photographer, then 24mm may be all you'd ever need in the wide range, and that new 24-70 mk2 is an incredibly sharp lens, corner to corner. It's Canon's crown jewel, as far as being wider than 35mm and faster than f/4 is concerned.

Even if you're a travel / landscape etc. photographer who does want to go wider than 24mm, there's a pretty good chance that you still don't need f/2.8 wider than 24mm, and a 16-35mm f/4 L IS is another wicked-sharp option that will save you at least half a pound. Not compared to the existing, aging mk2 and the new f/4, since they're about the same, but compared to the newer more exotic 14-XX and 15-XX f/2.8 ultrawides, which add as much as a whole pound above the existing Canon 16-35 2.8.

Or, if you've got tons of cash, and don't want to "waste" your mm yet don't mind lugging around a similarly ginormous lens, there's always the 11-24mm f/4.

Simply put, you have to really ~16mm, AND f/2.8, in an extremely sharp package, for such a mk3 lens to be worth buying. Which, even as a full-time wedding photographer, I must say is a tough thing to truly require. Even wedding photojournalism is just fine at f/4 when you go wider than 24mm, especially if you have stabilization.

Basically, the main application is astro-landscape photography. And even then, a lens needs to have pretty low vignetting to be worth its pricey aperture.

TLDR unless you're a low-light / nightscape junkie, get the 16-35 f/4 L IS and be happy.

 

[Matthew Saville]

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.

Agreed. If I'm going to lug around a 2-2.5 lb lens with such a bulbous front element, I'd rather it be f/2 than f/2.8, and f/4 is completely useless for me as a nightscape shooter. Given the weight of the recent 2.8 zooms, and Sigma's f/2 24-35, I'd be happy with a ~2 lb 17-24 f/2, give or take a mm based on keeping the weight down and the price....not exorbitant.

On the other hand, if I'm going to "settle" for an f/2.8 lens, I'd rather have a simple 16mm or 17mm f/2.8 prime that accepts 77mm filters. I had the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 once, and if they can create such a decent lens so many years ago, I'm sure they could do better today. Heck, if it ain't too heavy or expensive, an f/2 prime in that range should be doable, considering the weight and price of the half-decent Nikon 20mm f/1.8 G which also doesn't need 82mm filter threads.

But, my money is on Rokinon for such prime lenses. As of now Rokinon still has nothing between 14mm and 24mm that is full-frame, yet they've recently added almost every other focal range to their lineup. Unless they want to start making zooms, or mk2 versions of their already super-sharp lenses, something between 14mm and 24mm is inevitable. I'd go for a 20mm f/1.4, but considering the size and weight (and useless corners) of the Sigma 20 1.4, ...meh...