New EF f/2.8 Wide Angle Zoom in the Works [CR1]

[GMCPhotographics]

If it has the quality of 16-35 f/4 L IS it will be a very desirable lens...

The 16-35 f2.8 came first, then the 17-40 f4 L came some time later. The latter was a far better lens optically until Canon updated the 16-35 with the mkII and brought it to the same level as the f4 version. Many of us need the f2.8 option and f4 is just too slow.
So the new 16-35 f4 LIS is the newest design and leaves the old 16-35IIL wanting. So when Canon releases the new f2.8 version...it'll bring the f2.8 option upto the f4's capability....again.

 

[H. Jones]

I think I would have been more in the market for a new 16-35mm F/2.8 if it wasn't for the fact they're releasing a new 35mm F/1.4.

I currently have the 16-35mm F/4 IS and absolutely love it, it makes absolutely beautiful corner-to-corner images, and the image stabilizer is absolutely fantastic. If I want a fast wide angle to stop action without a flash, it's more likely that I'd opt for the faster 35mm f/1.4. F/4 16mm is acceptable for use with a flash, especially with a orb/omnibounce diffuser, and if it comes down to it, my 16mm shots during events/weddings are so rare that I'd rather just use higher ISO on those shots if flash isn't acceptable.

35mm on the otherhand is a very useful length for my events/weddings and I would love to have f/1.4 to stop action without a flash.

It'd take a lot more than f/2.8 to make me get rid of my 16-35mm F/4 IS, so I'd be curious to see what they release, but I'm much more interested in a 35mm f/1.4 to add to the abilities of my 16-35mm F/4 IS rather than replace it with a f/2.8.

 

[YellowJersey]

I realise that nobody knows the answer to the question I'm about to ask and that lens rumours are always a lot harder to pin down, so this is hugely speculative:

If this lens were to materialise, any thoughts on when (approximately) it might come out?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I realise that nobody knows the answer to the question I'm about to ask and that lens rumours are always a lot harder to pin down, so this is hugely speculative:

If this lens were to materialise, any thoughts on when (approximately) it might come out?

Firstly the optical formula has to be worked out. Then the prototypes...then that has to be turned into a production run. The production run has to be placed between other production runs for all the other lenses...and usually they are made in batches between runs / batches of other lenses in the queue.
If there's a delay with a lens batch further up queue then everything delays too.
It will be available when it's available.

 

[DRR]

I'm often a generation behind on most of my gear, so I can't wait for the III to come out so I can upgrade my 16-35 I to a 16-35II.

Related: Come on, 5D Mark IV!

 

[mangobutter]

Gee, do you think they'd try a faster aperture like f/2 like Sigma has for their f/1.8 18-35 zoom?
This would differentiate Canon from the awesome Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 (which I own).

Yeah. No. That's not how that works. The f/1.8 Sigma zoom is equivalent to a f/2.8 or f/2.9 on a crop body. It's designed to mimic the 24-70 2.8 formula for crop bodies. A full frame (proper lens) 2.0 zoom is not practical and would be bigger than your head and as expensive as a brand new Lexus.

 

[sleepnever]

I wonder if this is Canon finally trying to compete with the one Nikon lens I'd actually like to own - the 14-24 f2.8
It's pretty sweet for astro stuff:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/nightsky/[email protected]

Really awesome shot.

 

[NancyP]

Oh, if this has the corner to corner sharpness of the f/4 and has minimal coma, this would be THE astro lens. IS is nice, but for landscape and obviously for astro, I use a tripod. Currently I cover this with three very nice but also heavy lenses: 14mm f/2.8 Samyang, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, 35mm f/1.4 Sigma Art.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

If it has the quality of 16-35 f/4 L IS it will be a very desirable lens...

+1, I love my 16-35mm f4L IS however, if the new 16-35/2.8L has the same quality it would be interesting

 

[Matthew Saville]

1.) The pipe dreams of a full-frame 18-35mm f/1.8 are just that- pipe dreams. Unless someone can point me to a patent filed by Sigma, or any other, for a full-frame version of the existing APS-C lens, the whole thing is just conjecture and wishful thinking.

2.) While there are certainly plenty of (a majority of?) more "traditional" landscape photographers out there who shoot everything at f/11, astro-landscape photography is rapidly becoming more popular. In this realm, every last f-stop and ISO you can squeeze out of your camera matters, because every second longer you expose, the earth rotates and turns your beautiful milky way photos into annoying little lines.

3.) On that note, no you can not just "expose longer" as an astrophotographer. At 35mm, even an exposure of 15 sec will begin to render stars as small lines. At 24mm, an exposure of ~20 sec will do the same, and at 16mm, you can just barely accept 30 sec. So unless you're going to make every single night landscape photo you take a star trail, you do indeed crave f/2.8 instead of f/4. Heck, due to the above limitations, even f/2.8 is only acceptable at 17mm and wider. By 20mm, I'd really rather have f/2 at my disposal, and by 24-35mm, f/1.4 is almost mission-critical.

4.) ...Which brings me full circle: Although all rumors up to this point have been baseless, I would certainly love to see an ultrawide full-frame zoom that is faster than f/2.8. It doesn't need to be 16-35mm either, I'd settle for a 17-24mm f/2, if it could pull off filter threads instead of a bulbous front element. And considering the tiny weight and size of the Tokina 11-16 2.8, (equivalent to ~17-24mm) ...I'd say that a full-frame 17-24 f/2 is possible in less size / weight than the Nikon 14-24 at least, even if they have to forego front filters...

But, that's just a dream. The masses want what the masses want, and that'll be good enough for me.

 

[ahsanford]

This rumor doesn't surprise me, but I shake my head at why it's such a priority.

A 16-35 F/2.8L III is aimed at sports/events and possibly some landscape astro. But potential additional users of this lens -- namely landscapers and architectural interiors folks -- are likely out of the market as they just got their 16-35 F/4L IS and 11-24 F/4L lenses, respectively. So I have to question the scale of 'unmet need' at play here.

Surely the 35L II and 50 f/nooneknows IS USM have a far bigger pent-up demand than replacing a decent L lens that's only 8 years old.

- A

 

[meywd]

And for Astro, I would thik even 2.8 isn't fast enough. See a lot of folks using 24mm primes (or wider) at 1.4 or 2. I don't really shoot either of these that often so I don't know.

Pretty much this. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 for astro isn't very significant.

You really need 1.4 or bigger. f/2 might just cut it.

while f/1.4 or f/2 would be great, there are no FF lenses faster than f/2.8 on 16mm, also the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 12800 which means less noise, you can shoot panos with a 24mm or a 35mm, but its not the same.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

This rumor doesn't surprise me, but I shake my head at why it's such a priority.

A 16-35 F/2.8L III is aimed at sports/events and possibly some landscape astro. But potential additional users of this lens -- namely landscapers and architectural interiors folks -- are likely out of the market as they just got their 16-35 F/4L IS and 11-24 F/4L lenses, respectively. So I have to question the scale of 'unmet need' at play here.

Surely the 35L II and 50 f/nooneknows IS USM have a far bigger pent-up demand than replacing a decent L lens that's only 8 years old.

- A

The 16-35 F4 IS is only 20 grams lighter than the current f2.8 version. IS isn't very critical for landscapes, but f2.8 can be far more useful. If the new f2.8 has less vignetting and less coma while also sharper in the corners, it could be a huge hit for all types of photographers. If you watch any major sporting event like American football, the 16-35 f2.8 II is all over the place when they are doing wide shots. Both journalists and sports shooters love it for their wide angle work, as the lens is fast and has great focus consistency. A new version that is sharper in the corners wide open would be gobbled up in masses by those shooters. IS can't make up for f2.8 when getting the types of shots they take.

BTW, the 11-24 is a not a great landscape lens if one considers the weight to usefulness ratio.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

I see this as needed. I rented at 16-35 2.8 II and decided to go to the f4 and am happy. If I were an event photo guy, a sharp 2.8 is a must. Weddings, photo journ, bands, etc, etc. I see plenty of use for this.

I am not sure it is for me. I am over invested in this activity already.

 

[ahsanford]

The 16-35 F4 IS is only 20 grams lighter than the current f2.8 version. IS isn't very critical for landscapes, but f2.8 can be far more useful. If the new f2.8 has less vignetting and less coma while also sharper in the corners, it could be a huge hit for all types of photographers. If you watch any major sporting event like American football, the 16-35 f2.8 II is all over the place when they are doing wide shots. Both journalists and sports shooters love it for their wide angle work, as the lens is fast and has great focus consistency. A new version that is sharper in the corners wide open would be gobbled up in masses by those shooters. IS can't make up for f2.8 when getting the types of shots they take.

BTW, the 11-24 is a not a great landscape lens if one considers the weight to usefulness ratio.

Please don't mistake me, I'm not remotely arguing against the value of a 16-35 f/2.8 lens.

All the time, I see the 16-35 f/2.8L II at sporting events for post-game rushes on to the field / court as the coach or star player gets mobbed. It's an absolute staple lens for (American) football and basketball for that very reason. That single photographic need is such a staple for sports photographers that a fast UWA zoom will always be offered.

I just think that very few folks need f/2.8 in an UWA zoom, and as a result, the 16-35 f/4L IS probably got that business already. So I see a 16-35 F/2.8L III principally going to sports and event shooters.

- A

 

[PhotographyFirst]

The 16-35 F4 IS is only 20 grams lighter than the current f2.8 version. IS isn't very critical for landscapes, b
...

What do you mean IS isn't very critical?

You might as well say "taking the lens cap off isn't very critical."

???

 

[guidoz]

Well, I agree that 16-35 2.8 might be a bit specific for event/sport/reportage... but... if they'll make a version that is even just slightly less sharp than the 4 IS (even only when stopped down) from corner to corner, it would be a sort of all-around wide zoom...good for events/sport but also for landscapes (when stopped down).. and if coma is good even some astro/night landscapes.

I would definitely prefer such a lens to a more landscape specific 4 IS... couldn't care less about IS when doing landscape, and I prefer wide aperture over IS for most of other uses. I would definitely get it, even if more pricey than the 4 IS...

Just for the record: I'm a 16-35 2.8 II owner... I've been temped to replace it with 16-35 4 IS + samyang 14 2.8.. but I'm refraining because well.. I started using the Sigma 35A as a sharper landscape lens (although flare resistance isn't great at all) when I don't need UW focals... and I was just hoping to hear some rumors like this.

Let's just hope it won't take forever to have it in shops...

 

[tron]

2.) While there are certainly plenty of (a majority of?) more "traditional" landscape photographers out there who shoot everything at f/11, astro-landscape photography is rapidly becoming more popular. In this realm, every last f-stop and ISO you can squeeze out of your camera matters, because every second longer you expose, the earth rotates and turns your beautiful milky way photos into annoying little lines.

I imagine astro photography is becoming popular because it is relatively easy. Clear sky, find a dark place, expose. You don't have to worry about too much sunlight or contrast or any number of things that make day time landscape photography challenging. Just buy a nice wide angle lens, pop out after dark and bingo,

The keyword here is "imagine"....

 

[YuengLinger]

The 16-35 F4 IS is only 20 grams lighter than the current f2.8 version. IS isn't very critical for landscapes, b
...

What do you mean IS isn't very critical?

You might as well say "taking the lens cap off isn't very critical."

???

When you're shooting at f/11 with ISO 100, the IS lets you get shots at 1/10 hand held that you would not otherwise get.

Some people get even longer exposures with IS that they would otherwise have no hope of getting.

T-R-I-P-O-D

 

[YuengLinger]

The 16-35 F4 IS is only 20 grams lighter than the current f2.8 version. IS isn't very critical for landscapes, but f2.8 can be far more useful. If the new f2.8 has less vignetting and less coma while also sharper in the corners, it could be a huge hit for all types of photographers. If you watch any major sporting event like American football, the 16-35 f2.8 II is all over the place when they are doing wide shots. Both journalists and sports shooters love it for their wide angle work, as the lens is fast and has great focus consistency. A new version that is sharper in the corners wide open would be gobbled up in masses by those shooters. IS can't make up for f2.8 when getting the types of shots they take.

BTW, the 11-24 is a not a great landscape lens if one considers the weight to usefulness ratio.

Please don't mistake me, I'm not remotely arguing against the value of a 16-35 f/2.8 lens.

All the time, I see the 16-35 f/2.8L II at sporting events for post-game rushes on to the field / court as the coach or star player gets mobbed. It's an absolute staple lens for (American) football and basketball for that very reason. That single photographic need is such a staple for sports photographers that a fast UWA zoom will always be offered.

I just think that very few folks need f/2.8 in an UWA zoom, and as a result, the 16-35 f/4L IS probably got that business already. So I see a 16-35 F/2.8L III principally going to sports and event shooters.

- A

Canon would have been out of the SLR business decades ago if only people who needed them bought them.