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

[tron]

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

Very true unfortunately.

 

[Etienne]

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?

Buy a Sony A7r II or A7s II, both of which have in-body stabilization, and use Zeiss lenses with an adapter .... you're good to go.

 

[scottkinfw]

Thanks all for the education!

sek

 

[infared]

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

Very true unfortunately.

But if you are NOT an Astro boy...(or girl)...the Sigma looks pretty kickass for $899! I think it's an exciting lens...but it is a bit odd that Sigma touted the coma and in reviews it is not at the level needed for Astro work? DUH.

 

[expatinasia]

It is only a CR2, but if Canon do make an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III lens then it is going to be very interesting to see just how it can perform. Canon did such a truly amazing job with the 16-35 f/4 IS that I am really looking forward to the comparisons.

 

[Bennymiata]

I use my 16-35 II a lot, and it's been an excellent workhorse.

If the new has BR I'll get the new one, but if not, this lens will last me another 4 or 5 years.

 

[Sabaki]

A lens rumour is less mysterious than a new body

I guess the only thing we can speculate on is IQ and whether it has IS or not.

 

[Ladislav]

Interestingly a lot of people here tout 16-35 as landscape lens and 24-70 as walk around. I have it mostly the other way. 16-35/4 IS as ultimate city/interior walk around lens and 24-70/2.8 IS as event/landscape/countryside walk around lens. Anything wider than 24 usually feels too wide for me when taking landscape pictures.

There is no way I could replace my 16-35 for something heavier, more expensive and without IS. And I'm considering only situation when new f2.8 version is optically at lest the same as f4 version - anything worse is just disappointment. I bought the current lens just to "try" something wide because it was in some special sale. Turns out to be the best purchase I did in the long time.

I wonder if 24-70/4 IS is as good as 16-35/4 IS? If it is, I will consider selling my Tamron and go for Canon.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Does unique mean a small window to operate the CPl?

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

I don't know anybody who actually uses the hood on their 16-35 II L. Mine looks like new because it's never been used and is completely pointless. Unlike my lens which looks pretty well used.

 

[tron]

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

Very true unfortunately.

But if you are NOT an Astro boy...(or girl)...the Sigma looks pretty kickass for $899! I think it's an exciting lens...but it is a bit odd that Sigma touted the coma and in reviews it is not at the level needed for Astro work? DUH.

I guess different people, different needs. But, as others pointed out the coma would cause trouble even in non astro nightscapes (assuming there are light sources near the edges).

A very strange use I just thought would be to use it for astro and crop to make it equivalent say to 24 - 28mm. Combined with a high megapixel camera it could provide a less than perfect solution but never the less a 1.4 one...

On second thought Samyang 24 1.4 covers this area so the issue is which lens is sharper and more consistent - for example with no decentering - wide open...

 

[infared]

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

Very true unfortunately.

But if you are NOT an Astro boy...(or girl)...the Sigma looks pretty kickass for $899! I think it's an exciting lens...but it is a bit odd that Sigma touted the coma and in reviews it is not at the level needed for Astro work? DUH.

I guess different people, different needs. But, as others pointed out the coma would cause trouble even in non astro nightscapes (assuming there are light sources near the edges).

A very strange use I just thought would be to use it for astro and crop to make it equivalent say to 24 - 28mm. Combined with a high megapixel camera it could provide a less than perfect solution but never the less a 1.4 one...

On second thought Samyang 24 1.4 covers this area so the issue is which lens is sharper and more consistent - for example with no decentering - wide open...

Sounds like the Samyang is the best and cheapest! for astro. Coma is not much of a consideration for me...If I have a great photo...no one really notices what the lights might be doing once in 200 photos on the edge in the background...that is really...really over obsession! LOL!
I plan on owning the Sigma....it's the most interesting wide angle in ages and not badly priced! I need AF.

 

[Ryananthony]

A lens rumour is less mysterious than a new body

I guess the only thing we can speculate on is IQ and whether it has IS or not.

maybe it will have a "touch" zoom ring. ;D

 

[pwp]

A 16-35 f/2.8III will be welcomed globally. One would expect similar performance gains as we saw when the 24-70 f/2.8 upgraded to MkII a couple of years ago. A 16-35 f/2.8III release won't be coming any time soon, and I have no buyers regret at yesterday having bought a 16-35 f/4 to replace my unloved 16-35 f/2.8II. I'll sell the f/2.8 for more than the f/4 cost me. And I'll use it a lot more often.

There is little doubt that the 16-35 f/2.8III will be an absolute cracker of a lens when it eventually ships. Think back to the slow-motion, years long wait and years of rumors before the 24-70 f/2.8 finally got it's update. In the meantime I need a 16-35 that delivers, and the f/4 delivers in spades.

-pw

 

[Ozarker]

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!!!!!

That's funny!

 

[sanj]

I use my 16-35 II a lot, and it's been an excellent workhorse.

If the new has BR I'll get the new one, but if not, this lens will last me another 4 or 5 years.

What happens after 5 years? I can last practically forever.... If the new one does not have BR (I think it will) then the next replacement will be LONG time from now.

 

[privatebydesign]

I use my 16-35 II a lot, and it's been an excellent workhorse.

If the new has BR I'll get the new one, but if not, this lens will last me another 4 or 5 years.

What happens after 5 years? I can last practically forever.... If the new one does not have BR (I think it will) then the next replacement will be LONG time from now.

The lens will probably still work, though after enough time Canon don't support it and the inability to get parts for them will make many of them paperweights. I think the more relevant point is the IQ doesn't really stack up for many images.

The 16-35 f2.8 MkII came out when the Canon wide angle lens design team consisted of a on old blind guy, the work experience guy that also empties the bins when everybody went home, and the new kid who didn't know what end of the lens went on the camera. Well that new kid made good, he went to optics school in the evening and continued on to write his PHD on an unimaginable concept, a 17 TS-E. Well the old blind guy signed off on the 17 idea even though he truthfully didn't have the authority to and the blind guys protege, the 'new kid', became the wide and ultra wide go to guy. The marketing department, fresh from the success of the 17 TS-E put pressure on everybody else to let 'the new guy' do whatever he wants, kind of a Japanese lens skunkworks. Because all these random elements (little pun intended) fell into place, we now have the 17 TS-E, the 24 TS-E MkII, the 8-15, the 16-35 f4, the 11-24, the 35 f2 IS, the 35 f1.4L MkII.

The 16-35 f2.8 MkII is a weak performer by modern standards, and while content might trump IQ a lot of the time, there is a limit and those old weak Canon wides are not a thing of beauty.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Does unique mean a small window to operate the CPl?

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

I don't know anybody who actually uses the hood on their 16-35 II L. Mine looks like new because it's never been used and is completely pointless. Unlike my lens which looks pretty well used.

LOL! I totally agree! I use a hood for all my lenses except the 16-35. That hood just seems ridiculous to me.

 

[YellowJersey]

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.

Coma is the big issue for me, too. I do landscapes, but also shoot low light and the stars. The tossup is do I get the 16-35 f/4 and the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 now or wait and see if the 16-35 f/2.8 III has good coma control. Looking at the cost, I'd probably be paying $500 more to get the two lens option, but I'd also have to buy all new filters for the 16-35 2.8 since all my current filters are 77mm. Once you get a circ pol and UV, that differences is around $100 or $200.

Right now, I'm leaning heavily towards getting the Canon 16-35 f/4 and Tamron 15-30 2.8. Canon's never had a great history of good coma, plus IS is something I value (despite the fact that I use a tripod a fair bit). I know what I'm getting and the 16-35 f/4 has pretty good aberration control even without the BR coatings.

 

[tron]

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.

Coma is the big issue for me, too. I do landscapes, but also shoot low light and the stars. The tossup is do I get the 16-35 f/4 and the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 now or wait and see if the 16-35 f/2.8 III has good coma control. Looking at the cost, I'd probably be paying $500 more to get the two lens option, but I'd also have to buy all new filters for the 16-35 2.8 since all my current filters are 77mm. Once you get a circ pol and UV, that differences is around $100 or $200.

Right now, I'm leaning heavily towards getting the Canon 16-35 f/4 and Tamron 15-30 2.8. Canon's never had a great history of good coma, plus IS is something I value (despite the fact that I use a tripod a fair bit). I know what I'm getting and the 16-35 f/4 has pretty good aberration control even without the BR coatings.

True except for : 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 4L IS. So there is hope for the new 16-35 2.8L III

 

[Ozarker]

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.

Wedding photographers are the Green Berets of the photographic world. That has to be the most pressured and super heated category there is. Hats off to all you wedding photographers.