New BR Lens Before the End of the Year? [CR2]

[InterMurph]

Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?

I use my 16-35mm f/2.8L II for events all the time. Particularly school events, where my 24-70mm F/2.8L II isn't wide enough. It's the perfect lens for getting in the middle of a crowd of people and getting the shot.

Except that the shots are incredibly soft and mushy along the edges, requiring a lot of cropping.

 

[wallstreetoneil]

Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?

I ask this as the for/against contentions regarding IS seems to come from two different places.

My initial understanding is that it was primarily designed as a WA for landscape lens but it certainly has been extensively used as an event lens too. Hmmmmmmm...

I only see this lens on newspaper photogs attached to a 1Dx, held up in a scrum, firing at an athlete, politician, celeb paparazzi style. These pictures are then cropped put on the web or in print - quality of these pictures is almost irrelevant it would seem. Haven't seen a wedding photog, fashion photog or portrait photog, where clients care about quality, use this lens or FL. To drive sales as a refresh I don't see much downside in terms of 'having it' - but I don't see this being a big seller.

In my opinion, they would be far better off bring out:
- a $3k 24-70 IS with the newest coatings (wedding, portrait, fashion) would all buy it + 5DSR people would buy it
- a $3k 85L 1.4L IS with the newest coatings, fast focus, weather sealed
- a $2k 135 1.8L IS with newest coating, weather sealed (this would be a killer Portrait, Sports, Wedding lens)

 

[cenkog]

I don't see the need for IS in a 16-35 f/2.8 III.

"IS" feature of a lens is extremely useful for everyone and for every lens... Especially in a video era like this, a non-IS lens is totally unacceptable IMO...

 

[adventureous]

16-35mm f/2.8L II for real estate shots and events. I use this lens more than any other and will order the newer version asap.

 

[NWPhil]

sigma is kicking canon's ass with the 18-35 f1.8 and all the reports of the current 16-35 being soft. so im hoping they step up their game with a wide angle announcement before the red raven comes out or canon is going to loose a lot of customers, as they are already, to sigma. i personally think they should start making their zooms parafocal, this would be a huge gain for the blurred lines of photographers and videographers and would put canon again in the forefront of the lens race. if they dont, sigma will be the natural choice of everyone moving forward.

??? you are talking about the current 16-35 f/2.8 version right? not the f/4....

 

[ahsanford]

Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?

I ask this as the for/against contentions regarding IS seems to come from two different places.

My initial understanding is that it was primarily designed as a WA for landscape lens but it certainly has been extensively used as an event lens too. Hmmmmmmm...

Sabaki, the 16-35 f/2.8L II is a staple professional lens for sports and events where you need to be close to someone. The overwhelming use you'd see on American TV is the immediate aftermath of a football game when the two coaches come together for a handshake -- they usually are ringed by a dozen photographers with Canon 16-35s and Nikkor 14-24s.

It's also used quite a bit for reportage when there are tight spaces, say, getting a shot of a politician in a crowd, getting some more immersive shots of protesters, etc. And for those that didn't want to (or have the time to) work with a T/S lens, the 16-35 lens would also get used for architecture/interiors.

One thing the 16-35 f.2.8L II is *not* used very much for is landscape work. The lens is soft in the corners compared to other offerings and Canon owners have gone elsewhere for a landscape lens. As such, the 16-35 f/4L IS was a huge get for landscapers as they didn't need the speed/weight of an f/2.8 lens and it was clearly a sharper lens.

- A

 

[Sabaki]

Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?

I ask this as the for/against contentions regarding IS seems to come from two different places.

My initial understanding is that it was primarily designed as a WA for landscape lens but it certainly has been extensively used as an event lens too. Hmmmmmmm...

Sabaki, the 16-35 f/2.8L II is a staple professional lens for sports and events where you need to be close to someone. The overwhelming use you'd see on American TV is the immediate aftermath of a football game when the two coaches come together for a handshake -- they usually are ringed by a dozen photographers with Canon 16-35s and Nikkor 14-24s.

It's also used quite a bit for reportage when there are tight spaces, say, getting a shot of a politician in a crowd, getting some more immersive shots of protesters, etc. And for those that didn't want to (or have the time to) work with a T/S lens, the 16-35 lens would also get used for architecture/interiors.

One thing the 16-35 f.2.8L II is *not* used very much for is landscape work. The lens is soft in the corners compared to other offerings and Canon owners have gone elsewhere for a landscape lens. As such, the 16-35 f/4L IS was a huge get for landscapers as they didn't need the speed/weight of an f/2.8 lens and it was clearly a sharper lens.

- A

Hey ahsanford!

So based on the usage cited here, IS may be beneficial or would you consider that the relatively short focal length negates the need for image stabilization?

 

[ahsanford]

Hey ahsanford!

So based on the usage cited here, IS may be beneficial or would you consider that the relatively short focal length negates the need for image stabilization?

If video is a need, then yes, IS is very helpful. I don't know how badly the UWA videographers out there need f/2.8 brightness, so one might argue that IS -- though helpful on all focal lengths for video and stills -- is already addressed with the 16-35 f/4L IS.

I personally believe IS is useful on everything (I love love love it on my 28mm f/2.8 IS, where I'm often shooting handheld stills with available light in dark environments), but it does add weight and f/2.8 zooms are heavy enough already.

Of late, Canon has shown somewhat consistently* that -- under 70mm -- f/4 zooms get IS and f/2.8 zooms do not. So regardless of what we may want, I do not expect the 16-35 f/2.8L III to have IS.

*the exception being the nutty ultra-ultrawides like the 8-15, 11-24, etc.

- A

 

[StudentOfLight]

Hey ahsanford!

So based on the usage cited here, IS may be beneficial or would you consider that the relatively short focal length negates the need for image stabilization?

If video is a need, then yes, IS is very helpful. I don't know how badly the UWA videographers out there need f/2.8 brightness, so one might argue that IS -- though helpful on all focal lengths for video and stills -- is already addressed with the 16-35 f/4L IS.

I personally believe IS is useful on everything (I love love love it on my 28mm f/2.8 IS, where I'm often shooting handheld stills with available light in dark environments), but it does add weight and f/2.8 zooms are heavy enough already.

Of late, Canon has shown somewhat consistently* that -- under 70mm -- f/4 zooms get IS and f/2.8 zooms do not. So regardless of what we may want, I do not expect the 16-35 f/2.8L III to have IS.

*the exception being the nutty ultra-ultrawides like the 8-15, 11-24, etc.

- A

You need to put things in perspective. I don't think IS adds much weight and the 16-35mm f/2.8 is by no means heavy. If I put in in the lens pouch then I can pick mine it up with one finger. Now my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is another story that takes at least two maybe even three fingers to lift especially with the tripod collar on.

Too heavy is a matter of personal preference. If you are willing to shoot whole day with a 24-70 f/2.8 or a 70-200mm f/2.8 then how is a 16-35mm so different. As long as the lens is nicely balanced on your camera I don't see how a few extra grams would be a problem.

 

[ahsanford]

You need to put things in perspective. I don't think IS adds much weight and the 16-35mm f/2.8 is by no means heavy. If I put in in the lens pouch then I can pick mine it up with one finger. Now my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is another story that takes at least two maybe even three fingers to lift especially with the tripod collar on.

Too heavy is a matter of personal preference. If you are willing to shoot whole day with a 24-70 f/2.8 or a 70-200mm f/2.8 then how is a 16-35mm so different. As long as the lens is nicely balanced on your camera I don't see how a few extra grams would be a problem.

Please don't misunderstand me. I want IS on everything -- I'm just spitballing ideas why the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 zooms haven't gotten IS while the f/4 versions do get it.

Managing weight is one theory.

Saying that f/2.8 zoom buyers are rarely shooting stationary targets handheld in terribly low light is another theory.

Saying that folks buying f/2.8 zooms are largely professionals who typically have better grip technique and manage their shutter speeds more effectively than amateurs (and therefore have a lower need for IS) is another theory.

And, of course, the notion that wider FLs don't need it as much as longer FLs is 100% true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't help at wider FLs.

And then there's the painful theory that Canon deliberately doesn't put everything into one lens, instead wanting everyone to buy an f/2.8 zoom and an f/4 IS zoom.

Again, I want it on everything. Just saying.

- A

 

[adventureous]

16-35f/4L IS weighs 1.35 lb (615 g) how much of that 1.35lb is going to the image stabilization?? The 16-35F/2.8II weighs 1.4 lb (635 g) .

 

[ahsanford]

16-35f/4L IS weighs 1.35 lb (615 g) how much of that 1.35lb is going to the image stabilization?? The 16-35F/2.8II weighs 1.4 lb (635 g) .

Not a fair comparison -- there's clearly more to that f/4 lens (new formula + far sharper) and it was developed at a later time with different components.

But there is a ready made way to size up the weight of IS vs. max aperture -- with the identical-in-most-every-other-way 70-200 L zooms:

70-200 f/4L 24.9 oz
70-200 f/4L IS 26.8 oz (7.6% increase)

70-200 f/2.8L 46.2 oz
70-200 f/2.8L IS I* 51.9 oz (12.3% increase)

(*Deliberately chose the first IS version of this lens as that was the one that was co-developed with the non-IS one.)

So, as I think we all know, for a given focal range zoom, increasing the max aperture is a far bigger driver of the weight than IS is.

Again, my vote is to put it on everything, but I still think Canon will be stubborn with the 16-35 f/2.8L III.

- A

 

[ranplett]

Well, they did say that it will likely be a zoom, and if that's the case, I can't picture another fairly standard zoom lens needing an upgrade more than the 16-35 2.8 L, especially since Canon typically pumps out a 2.8 and an IS version of each standard zoom lens, and the f4 L IS is a fairly new design. Also, it seems that there's an astrophotography boom right now, and people want a good ultrawide 2.8 zoom and will pay good money for it. The current v.II isn't so good for astrophotography.

Reasons I don't think it will be a zoom are because they are most likely losing market share to Sigma with their 50A. They just upgraded the 35 1.4 L to compete with the Sigma 35A, and I think the 50 should be next. With these primes, there is an expectation of perfection, something that the new BR element should help with.

Also, Canon's put a lot of emphasis on wide angle lenses lately, including the 11-24 L, 16-35 L IS, 17 TS-E L, etc. But all of those were f4. Hmmm.. Also, I've lost all faith in Canon's ability to produce a good 50mm.

 

[ranplett]

I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring

Re: Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC.. Is it really 1mm wider? I read on DPReview that it's equivalent to 16mm on the wide end. If that's true, it would be more like a 16-30 2.8 IS. I was excited about it until I realized it wasn't going to get much wider than the Canon. The bulbous lens element didn't help either. They feel too vulnerable, and I could actually fit the Canon 16-35 IS into my underwater case.

 

[ahsanford]

Well, they did say that it will likely be a zoom, and if that's the case, I can't picture another fairly standard zoom lens needing an upgrade more than the 16-35 2.8 L, especially since Canon typically pumps out a 2.8 and an IS version of each standard zoom lens, and the f4 L IS is a fairly new design. Also, it seems that there's an astrophotography boom right now, and people want a good ultrawide 2.8 zoom and will pay good money for it. The current v.II isn't so good for astrophotography.

Reasons I don't think it will be a zoom are because they are most likely losing market share to Sigma with their 50A. They just upgraded the 35 1.4 L to compete with the Sigma 35A, and I think the 50 should be next. With these primes, there is an expectation of perfection, something that the new BR element should help with.

Also, Canon's put a lot of emphasis on wide angle lenses lately, including the 11-24 L, 16-35 L IS, 17 TS-E L, etc. But all of those were f4. Hmmm.. Also, I've lost all faith in Canon's ability to produce a good 50mm.

Agree.

My guess is the next zoom is a 16-35 f/2.8L III without the BR technology. The next prime L should be the 50, and it all but certainly will have the BR technology, one would think.

- A

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring

Re: Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC.. Is it really 1mm wider? I read on DPReview that it's equivalent to 16mm on the wide end. If that's true, it would be more like a 16-30 2.8 IS. I was excited about it until I realized it wasn't going to get much wider than the Canon. The bulbous lens element didn't help either. They feel too vulnerable, and I could actually fit the Canon 16-35 IS into my underwater case.

Read or watch my reviews - the Tamron is noticeably wider than either Canon 16-35mm. If it is less than 15mm, then they are less than 16mm.

 

[tron]

Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?

I ask this as the for/against contentions regarding IS seems to come from two different places.

My initial understanding is that it was primarily designed as a WA for landscape lens but it certainly has been extensively used as an event lens too. Hmmmmmmm...

I only see this lens on newspaper photogs attached to a 1Dx, held up in a scrum, firing at an athlete, politician, celeb paparazzi style. These pictures are then cropped put on the web or in print - quality of these pictures is almost irrelevant it would seem. Haven't seen a wedding photog, fashion photog or portrait photog, where clients care about quality, use this lens or FL. To drive sales as a refresh I don't see much downside in terms of 'having it' - but I don't see this being a big seller.

In my opinion, they would be far better off bring out:
- a $3k 24-70 IS with the newest coatings (wedding, portrait, fashion) would all buy it + 5DSR people would buy it
- a $3k 85L 1.4L IS with the newest coatings, fast focus, weather sealed
- a $2k 135 1.8L IS with newest coating, weather sealed (this would be a killer Portrait, Sports, Wedding lens)

So it would better if I 135 were to go up to 1.8 (from 2.0) but it would be better too if 85 were to go down to 1.4 (from 1.2)

Interesting thought....

 

[ranplett]

I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring

Re: Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC.. Is it really 1mm wider? I read on DPReview that it's equivalent to 16mm on the wide end. If that's true, it would be more like a 16-30 2.8 IS. I was excited about it until I realized it wasn't going to get much wider than the Canon. The bulbous lens element didn't help either. They feel too vulnerable, and I could actually fit the Canon 16-35 IS into my underwater case.

Read or watch my reviews - the Tamron is noticeably wider than either Canon 16-35mm. If it is less than 15mm, then they are less than 16mm.

"The Rokinon’s 14mm focal length produces a field of view of 115.7 degrees (WOW!), while the Tamron’s 15mm produces a field of view of a slightly more modest 110 degrees. The Canon 16-35 frames at about 108 degrees while the Nikkor 14-24 actually frames at 114 degrees (as done Canon’s own 14L lens). Just for kicks: the Zeiss 15mm also frames at 110 degrees just like the Tamron, so the exception to the rule here is the Rokinon"

From: http://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/tamron-sp-15-30mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

Thanks for clearing that up! According to some calculations, if the Tamron is truly 15mm, than it would be 110.5 degrees, and if the Canon is truly 16mm, it should be 107 degrees, which is a difference of 3.5 degrees, not the 2 degrees difference based on your numbers. I guess it's kind of like thinking that the Canon is 15.5-35mm, which plays into the lens buying decision.

I did not come across your review when I was researching, which is a shame because your reviews are really thorough and enjoyable. Keep up the good work.

 

[infared]

I'd be all for a 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii

SERIOUSLY doubt Canon would throw IS into it though

Yeah, a 16-35 f2.8 IS would be absolutely massive (and expensive). Just look at Tamron's 15-30 f2.8 VC,plus the fact that it's a bulbous lens that can't take front filters.

As an occasional landscaper, that Tamron 15-30 just boils by blood. I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring. That is now my gold standard example for 'worst lens decision ever'.

- A

To each their own. It's one of my favorite lenses.

Dustin..I read your review of the Tamron and WOW...I have to confess..that I did not know of its existence...but Tamron lost me when I saw on LensRentals (Roger) mention the "falling-out" front elements on the 24-70mm lenses, I believe it was...so I have just disregarded any of their products from that time on. I also think that when I sold off my 16-35mm f/2.8L II to buy the New 16-35mm f/4L IS that the Tamron Superwide Zoom was not yet released. I actually sold off my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 also, because I realized after owning the new Canon IS zoom that I most likely would rarely use it. (although...I may be in the market for the upcoming Sigma 20mm f/1.4 to give me a fast UWA lens to complement the Canon Zoom, for low-light or astro photos. Waiting for a review on that one).

Here is the thing with the Tamron...even after I read your extensive review, and I do respect your opinion.... I know that Tamron has a 6-year warranty...but after seeing a company that spot glues its front elements in (that can fall out), and even your own problem with your Tamron 24-70mm (the alignment issue)....Do you have the confidence when you go out with the Tamron UWA zoom that you are going to come home with the goods. Does the lens feel cheaply made or "less-than"???
On paper...the lens sounds perfect for me...I do not care about the filter issue, and f/2.8 with accurate AF and IS seems like a dream lens, especially when it also out performs or matches the high-end competition in sharpness, contrast and general IQ. I could live with the size of the monster for ALL of the benefits. That is my one huge hesitation. Has Tamron turned a corner like Sigma seems to have with the build, performance and design of their products? I am not a L fanbois..to the point that I will not own other manufactures...I have the Sigma 50mm and 35mm Arts (and after a return and some tuning on the dock...they are quite incredible for the price)... I know that you are not so much of fan of the Sigma's.
It is interesting how we all have such differing experiences and opinions for our equipment...I guess that goes along with different needs, too.
Thanks for all the great, THOROUGH reviews....You always do a great job with you check out a lens!

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'd be all for a 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii

SERIOUSLY doubt Canon would throw IS into it though

Yeah, a 16-35 f2.8 IS would be absolutely massive (and expensive). Just look at Tamron's 15-30 f2.8 VC,plus the fact that it's a bulbous lens that can't take front filters.

As an occasional landscaper, that Tamron 15-30 just boils by blood. I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring. That is now my gold standard example for 'worst lens decision ever'.

- A

To each their own. It's one of my favorite lenses.

Dustin..I read your review of the Tamron and WOW...I have to confess..that I did not know of its existence...but Tamron lost me when I saw on LensRentals (Roger) mention the "falling-out" front elements on the 24-70mm lenses, I believe it was...so I have just disregarded any of their products from that time on. I also think that when I sold off my 16-35mm f/2.8L II to buy the New 16-35mm f/4L IS that the Tamron Superwide Zoom was not yet released. I actually sold off my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 also, because I realized after owning the new Canon IS zoom that I most likely would rarely use it. (although...I may be in the market for the upcoming Sigma 20mm f/1.4 to give me a fast UWA lens to complement the Canon Zoom, for low-light or astro photos. Waiting for a review on that one).

Here is the thing with the Tamron...even after I read your extensive review, and I do respect your opinion.... I know that Tamron has a 6-year warranty...but after seeing a company that spot glues its front elements in (that can fall out), and even your own problem with your Tamron 24-70mm (the alignment issue)....Do you have the confidence when you go out with the Tamron UWA zoom that you are going to come home with the goods. Does the lens feel cheaply made or "less-than"???
On paper...the lens sounds perfect for me...I do not care about the filter issue, and f/2.8 with accurate AF and IS seems like a dream lens, especially when it also out performs or matches the high-end competition in sharpness, contrast and general IQ. I could live with the size of the monster for ALL of the benefits. That is my one huge hesitation. Has Tamron turned a corner like Sigma seems to have with the build, performance and design of their products? I am not a L fanbois..to the point that I will not own other manufactures...I have the Sigma 50mm and 35mm Arts (and after a return and some tuning on the dock...they are quite incredible for the price)... I know that you are not so much of fan of the Sigma's.
It is interesting how we all have such differing experiences and opinions for our equipment...I guess that goes along with different needs, too.
Thanks for all the great, THOROUGH reviews....You always do a great job with you check out a lens!

The 15-30 is a tank of a lens. It is very, very well made. You'll find that I used the 16-35mm f/2.8 and f/4L IS lenses alongside it for an extended period of time (I didn't own any of them at the time), and I personally chose the Tamron.

As for the 24-70 VC - I have used it more roughly and frequently than any other lens for three years in half a dozen countries and all weather conditions - it actually hasn't let me down at all. I don't know what to say about the "front element" falling out, but that seems like a bit of hyperbole to me. My copy has paid for itself many, many times over (including a single shot used -ironically - by Canon to promote the 6D) ;D