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

[guidoz]

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.

What you're saying doesn't make sense at all. The IS allows you to expose 3-4 stops "longer"... the actual shutter time-iso-aperture values can be very different from the ones you mention, depending on the available light.

Anyway, if you shoot moving subject at 1/10 you'll get motion blur... and if you shot landscapes, well... why expose 1/10 hand-held when you can expose a couple of minutes on a tripod?

 

[Antono Refa]

The zoom ratio is 2.06, which means either 1mm on the wide side, or 2mm on the long side.

 

[super_newbie_pro]

Please dont forget a new 20mm f2.8 USM IS

 

[gobucks]

One thing nobody has mentioned is price. The current 2.8 II, which is clearly worse than the f4 IS in every way but max aperture, still carries a $500 premium. I'd imagine a brand new 2.8 with IQ equal to the F4 would be priced around $2k, maybe more (see canons pricing when they finally released the killer 24-70 2.8 II). A further problem is that unlike the 24-70, where the 2.8 II blows away the 24-105 and overpriced 24-70 F4 IS, at a new 16-35 III would be competing with a competitively priced, excellent IQ F4 IS option in the ultrawide segment, where f2.8 is less important. So basically the only market is for astro people and event photographers who need wide angle without flash. Thus, I think the 16-35 III would be a very niche lens, and low volume would probably make it more expensive to produce.

 

[ahsanford]

One thing nobody has mentioned is price. The current 2.8 II, which is clearly worse than the f4 IS in every way but max aperture, still carries a $500 premium. I'd imagine a brand new 2.8 with IQ equal to the F4 would be priced around $2k, maybe more (see canons pricing when they finally released the killer 24-70 2.8 II). A further problem is that unlike the 24-70, where the 2.8 II blows away the 24-105 and overpriced 24-70 F4 IS, at a new 16-35 III would be competing with a competitively priced, excellent IQ F4 IS option in the ultrawide segment, where f2.8 is less important. So basically the only market is for astro people and event photographers who need wide angle without flash. Thus, I think the 16-35 III would be a very niche lens, and low volume would probably make it more expensive to produce.

All fair points.

I think there are a large chunk of sports and events shooters wouldn't be caught dead with an f/4 lens unless they were in big white territory. Despite the high ISO gains sensors have made over the years, some folks are fixated on letting in the most light, and that's that -- that's how they are wired. To those folks, the only competition for the 16-35 F/2.8L III is the 16-35 F/2.8L II because that's what they use now.

But I have to mention that the 24-70 F/4L IS is a spectacularly underrated lens. Currently at $800 (after rebate), you get a lens that is:

• Compact and light -- sneaks under some stadium's 6" lens limits, it's very light for hiking
• Sharper than the 24-105L
• Offers IS
• Has an unprecedented 0.7x max mag for a non macro lens. That feature is phenomenal for non-dedicated / walkaround macro work.
• Loaded full of L lens goodness -- proper quick USM, weather sealing, hood, etc.

That lens is a great value, not a poor one. I peg it right up there with the 16-35 F/4L IS as relative bargain compared to Canon's other insanely priced items.

- A

 

[LonelyBoy]

T-R-I-P-O-D

So this saves me the cost of a tripod and the hassle of lugging the damn thing around? Fantastic! You seem to be making a great case for IS.

 

[ahsanford]

T-R-I-P-O-D

So this saves me the cost of a tripod and the hassle of lugging the damn thing around? Fantastic! You seem to be making a great case for IS.

Tripod vs. IS is a case study of one sensibility trying to crush the other. Proponents of each group will never see eye to eye.

I rank such a debate up there with using UV/clear filters vs. shooting with naked lenses. It's a philosophical position that borders on religious belief, and no degree of discourse will change opinions on either side.

I don't want to stifle the discussion, but please recognize neither of you are going to change each other's minds. I'd rather be respectful and concede those with the patience and deliberate shooting technique, a tripod is a great call. For them.

But for me, I overwhelmingly shoot handheld with available light and only use the tripod for dedicated landscape work (less than 5% of what I shoot). Therefore -- for my needs -- IS is gold at any focal length as it is a stop-for-stop 'ISO reducer' when shooting static scenes, i.e. if you are shooting a static scene and the lens packs 3 stops of IS, then I'll net the same shot at ISO 800 that a non-IS lens will require ISO 6400 to capture. That is worth paying extra for, plain and simple.

- A

 

[gobucks]

All fair points.

I think there are a large chunk of sports and events shooters wouldn't be caught dead with an f/4 lens unless they were in big white territory. Despite the high ISO gains sensors have made over the years, some folks are fixated on letting in the most light, and that's that -- that's how they are wired. To those folks, the only competition for the 16-35 F/2.8L III is the 16-35 F/2.8L II because that's what they use now.

But I have to mention that the 24-70 F/4L IS is a spectacularly underrated lens. Currently at $800 (after rebate), you get a lens that is:

• Compact and light -- sneaks under some stadium's 6" lens limits, it's very light for hiking
• Sharper than the 24-105L
• Offers IS
• Has an unprecedented 0.7x max mag for a non macro lens. That feature is phenomenal for non-dedicated / walkaround macro work.
• Loaded full of L lens goodness -- proper quick USM, weather sealing, hood, etc.

That lens is a great value, not a poor one. I peg it right up there with the 16-35 F/4L IS as relative bargain compared to Canon's other insanely priced items.

- A

I hadn't realized how much the 24-70 F4 IS has dropped in price since launch (I think it launched at a staggering $1500). $799 is much more reasonable, and I have no doubt it's a bit underrated, but I think it has a problem with market positioning. It's in the unenviable position of being a shorter-focal length but optically superior version of a very popular kit lens. With the 24-105 being quite sharp (although dim at T/5.1) and only $400 with a new body, it's a tough sell to get a new full framer to go the more expensive route to buy the shorter range 24-70. And I doubt many pros would consider an F4 normal zoom for their main lens.

As for the comparison to the 24-70 2.8 II, I think F2.8 is more of a selling point at the 24-70 (and to some extent 70-200) focal ranges than at 16-35. 24-70 is the walk-around range, and 2.8 is invaluable for capturing those unscripted moments, particularly at night. 16-35 is more often geared towards landscapes, architecture, and things like that. Obviously some people will use a 16-35 for astro and wide wedding shots or whatever, but I think if you asked most people whether they'd prefer an F4 ultrawide and a F2.8 normal zoom, or an F2.8 ultrawide and F4 normal zoom, 95% would choose the former.

With all that, I'm having a hard time figuring out how Canon would make enough separation from the 16-35 F4 IS to justify the sticker price they'd probably want for the 16-35 F2.8 III. I guess something akin to the Nikon 14-24 2.8 might do the trick, although to some extent that lens benefits from Nikon's own 16-35 VR being a dog - Canon's F4 IS nearly matches the Nikon 14-24 in sharpness.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Tripod vs. IS is a case study of one sensibility trying to crush the other. Proponents of each group will never see eye to eye.

I rank such a debate up there with using UV/clear filters vs. shooting with naked lenses. It's a philosophical position that borders on religious belief, and no degree of discourse will change opinions on either side.

I don't want to stifle the discussion, but please recognize neither of you are going to change each other's minds. I'd rather be respectful and concede those with the patience and deliberate shooting technique, a tripod is a great call. For them.

But for me, I overwhelmingly shoot handheld with available light and only use the tripod for dedicated landscape work (less than 5% of what I shoot). Therefore -- for my needs -- IS is gold at any focal length as it is a stop-for-stop 'ISO reducer' when shooting static scenes, i.e. if you are shooting a static scene and the lens packs 3 stops of IS, then I'll net the same shot at ISO 800 that a non-IS lens will require ISO 6400 to capture. That is worth paying extra for, plain and simple.

- A

Fair enough. And I very much agree - all of my shooting right now (obviously) is hand-held. Most of it isn't even realistic to do with a tripod - neighborhood walks, trail runs, and (of course) my cat). Probably the F1 race later this year. No way I'm using a tripod for any of that, so the insistence that it's the way to go from the other camp rankles.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I hadn't realized how much the 24-70 F4 IS has dropped in price since launch (I think it launched at a staggering $1500). $799 is much more reasonable, and I have no doubt it's a bit underrated, but I think it has a problem with market positioning. It's in the unenviable position of being a shorter-focal length but optically superior version of a very popular kit lens. With the 24-105 being quite sharp (although dim at T/5.1) and only $400 with a new body, it's a tough sell to get a new full framer to go the more expensive route to buy the shorter range 24-70. And I doubt many pros would consider an F4 normal zoom for their main lens.

Yeah. I think Canon has a problem with offering three(!) FF kit lenses, since the 24-105L, 24-105 STM, and 24-70/4L are all kit lenses. None is great, all have their good and bad sides... and it makes for too many SKUs and too many different prices. It would have been glorious if the STM were weather-sealed and constant f/4. It would have been glorious if the 24-70/4L had been cheaper than the 24-105L. As it is, I ordered my 5D3 with a 24-105L because yes, it's the best of the options for the price. Even if it's dim.

They should have made a FF kit lens on par with the 18-135 STM, or at least the 18-55 STM, and just put it everywhere instead of three choices to confuse the first-time FF shopper.

Yes, this was off-topic, but having just plunked down the cash, I wanted to vent a little when it came up!

 

[YuengLinger]

T-R-I-P-O-D

So this saves me the cost of a tripod and the hassle of lugging the damn thing around? Fantastic! You seem to be making a great case for IS.

Tripod vs. IS is a case study of one sensibility trying to crush the other. Proponents of each group will never see eye to eye.

I rank such a debate up there with using UV/clear filters vs. shooting with naked lenses. It's a philosophical position that borders on religious belief, and no degree of discourse will change opinions on either side.

I don't want to stifle the discussion, but please recognize neither of you are going to change each other's minds. I'd rather be respectful and concede those with the patience and deliberate shooting technique, a tripod is a great call. For them.

But for me, I overwhelmingly shoot handheld with available light and only use the tripod for dedicated landscape work (less than 5% of what I shoot). Therefore -- for my needs -- IS is gold at any focal length as it is a stop-for-stop 'ISO reducer' when shooting static scenes, i.e. if you are shooting a static scene and the lens packs 3 stops of IS, then I'll net the same shot at ISO 800 that a non-IS lens will require ISO 6400 to capture. That is worth paying extra for, plain and simple.

- A

I suggested use of a tripod when shutter speed was down to 1/10th of a second with a relatively high ISO.

A tripod is a critical tool in photography and should be used when needed. Some photographers simply don't have the experience, knowledge, or sense to decide when a tripod is necessary.

No comparison to using or not using a UV filter. Off target analogy.

 

[insanitybeard]

And some people like long distance hikers, mountaineers etc just don't have room to carry a tripod in their kit, or might be working in conditions where a tripod just isn't practical or possible.... why is an extra tool which can help capture a decent shot in less than favourable conditions such a bad thing?

 

[YuengLinger]

Who has been advocating no IS?

I'd love every lens to have it, but it isn't the answer to every low-light situation, obviously. There are times when a tripod is necessary, times when a tripod is silly, and times when it is great to have it in the trunk just in case.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Who has been advocating no IS?

I'd love every lens to have it, but it isn't the answer to every low-light situation, obviously. There are times when a tripod is necessary, times when a tripod is silly, and times when it is great to have it in the trunk just in case.

There are people (I can't remember which thread) specifically calling IS "useless glass that can only degrade IQ".

 

[tron]

Who has been advocating no IS?

I'd love every lens to have it, but it isn't the answer to every low-light situation, obviously. There are times when a tripod is necessary, times when a tripod is silly, and times when it is great to have it in the trunk just in case.

There are people (I can't remember which thread) specifically calling IS "useless glass that can only degrade IQ".

Maybe they didn't have to use telephoto lenses.


As a SINGLE case however, I have one lens 300 f/4L (NON IS) which is reported better than 300 4L IS.

As an example (since I do not have the IS version) my 300 4L with 1.4XII was better than my 100-400 (version 1) even when the 300+1.4X combination was at f/6.3 and the 100-400 at f/7.1.
All shots were with tripod and LV focusing at 10x.

At the same time there are reports that 300L IS + 1.4XII is worse than 100-400 (version 1). So ...

But as I said this was the past and a single lens model.