New f/4L EF Zoom [CR1]

[Steve Todd]

The EF 28-200 has been around forever and could use a makeover (add IS). Maybe replacing it with a 24-200 or 24-250 Would be nice. In the film days and before the great EF 28-300 (heavy but outstanding performer) came along, this was my choice for travel and general shooting with my EOS-1V and 1n bodies. Today a lens like that would be a great walk around/street lens and an even better choice than the very good EF 24-105!

 

[stark-arts]

I would be a bit worried about the size of this new 16-50L IS.

I think the most notable advantage of the 17-40 is its compact size. However, if the evolution would involve a change similar to 16-35L I to 16-35 LII... (and don't forget how IS tends to make the lens bigger) :-\

Can you show us a lens that is bigger due to IS? Not one that I can think of - I could be wrong on this.
I also don't believe that 1 mm at front end and 10 at long end will greatly increase the size of the lens. it would be smaller than the 17-55 2.8 so it can't be too big...

 

[scalesusa]

I've had a 17-40mm L for about 2 years now, and have never warmed up to it. It focuses fine and all that, but is not particularly sharp, even stopped down.

I'd be interested in a updated IS version for my FF and 1D MK III cameras.

 

[mcgrattan]

Perfect walkabout for APS-H sensors

 

[match14]

I have a feeling that his lens could turn out to be a 15-70mm f/4. APS-C users have been longing for a crop equivalent of the 24-105mm f/4L for ages and a 15-70mm would be equivalent to 24-112mm on a crop body. Of course, many people say that f/4 is not fast enough on a crop but there are lots people using the 24-105mm on crop right now and are happy but wish it were wider. I would be tempted to say that this would be an EF-S lens but I feel that this lens would be more expensive than the 15-85 and therefore would not be a big seller compared to that lens. Therefore, I think that this would be an EF 15-70mm f/4L IS USM, which could replace the 17-40 f/4. This way crop users wanting a weather sealed pro built lens would have a great standard lens with a better range than the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, and if those users upgraded to full frame or decided to use two bodies, one crop the other full frame, the lens would become a wide angle zoom. Granted there would be terrible distortion on full frame at 15mm but the lens could be used on full frame for anyone taking their first step upgrading from crop to full frame.

Of course, the exact focal lengths I have stated maybe wrong so it could be 15-60mm rather than 15-70mm but I do see it starting at 15mm and ending at either 60mm or 70mm.

So it think the lens will turn out to be either an EF 15-60mm f/4L IS USM or and EF 15-70 f/4L IS USM. I know many people would hope it was an EF-S lens but as I have said, it would be to close to the EF-S 15-85mm.

 

[mrfig]

The original comment......

"With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?"

Your kidding right?!? For wide angle lenses wider apatures are more critical than ever if you want to compress your depth of field!!

 

[ronderick]

I would be a bit worried about the size of this new 16-50L IS.

I think the most notable advantage of the 17-40 is its compact size. However, if the evolution would involve a change similar to 16-35L I to 16-35 LII... (and don't forget how IS tends to make the lens bigger) :-\

Can you show us a lens that is bigger due to IS? Not one that I can think of - I could be wrong on this.
I also don't believe that 1 mm at front end and 10 at long end will greatly increase the size of the lens. it would be smaller than the 17-55 2.8 so it can't be too big...

How can putting on additional components not affect the size and weight?

70-200 f/2.8L USM 84.6mm x 193.6mm, 1310g
70-200 f/2.8L IS USM 86.2mm x 197mm, 1470g
(*stats from Canon USA website)

I haven't compared the two side-by-side, but any extra weight accounts for a big difference at the end of the day (as for whether you can tell the difference of a several mm in dimension, that's subjective).

However, if 16-50 f/4 L was indeed to come, my bet is there'll be notable differences, since its both adding IS and focal length. We'd be lucky if Canon keeps the filter size at 77 *shrug*

 

[muteteh]

I hope big things are coming.

Per the EF Lens chronology, I would guess we can expect three more lenses around photokina.

Personally, I hope for a new circular fisheye. A new ultrawide lens a-la Nikkor 14-24 or Sigma 12-24 would be nice.

Mostly, I wonder what Canon plans to do with it's prime lenses. IMHO, a good example would be the 24mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.8 are not sharper or faster than the EF 24-70mm, and do not feature USM. I think it's about time Canon re-did it's cheaper 20mm-24mm-28mm-35mm primes with improved optics, f/1.8 aperture, and USM.

 

[Woody]

How can putting on additional components not affect the size and weight?
70-200 f/2.8L USM 84.6mm x 193.6mm, 1310g
70-200 f/2.8L IS USM 86.2mm x 197mm, 1470g

But the amount added can vary from lens to lens:

a) 70-200 f/4 without and with IS: 705 to 760 g
b) 100 f/2.8 macro without and with IS: 600 to 625 g

In the two examples listed above, the increase is very slight (about 4 to 8%).

 

[pierlux]

With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?

Why not? Especially considering that stopping down to f/4 a f/2.8 wideangle zoom should yield better image quality than a f/4 wide open. That said, a replacement of the 17-40 f/4L USM is absolutely possible. Most of the official Canon websites worldwide (except Canon USA, Canon Canada and a few others) indicate the 17-40 being especially suited for crop sensors, though being an EF lens (yes, they really explicitly state this!). Which is a mild way to say that it sucks wide open on a FF body.

 

[Grendel]

With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?

Yes. 1: you want low ISO, the dark end of the DR shows noise at ISO 100 w/ todays pixel density and 2: DOF.

 

[Canon Rumors]

With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?

Yes. 1: you want low ISO, the dark end of the DR shows noise at ISO 100 w/ todays pixel density and 2: DOF.

1) If they improve DR, that will fix that issue.

2) To me, the DOF at 16mm between 2.8 and 4.0 is so minimal. I'd shoot with a 24 1.4 for that purpose.

3) They should make a Leica influenced 21 f/1.4. That's a fun lens.

 

[ronderick]

But the amount added can vary from lens to lens:

a) 70-200 f/4 without and with IS: 705 to 760 g
b) 100 f/2.8 macro without and with IS: 600 to 625 g

In the two examples listed above, the increase is very slight (about 4 to 8%).

Don't know about the 70-200 f/4, but in the case of 100 f/2.8, I have experienced the dilimma of choosing between IS or none-IS (Thanks for mentioning this one... I almost forgot about the first H-IS update).

While it may not be that significant in terms of weight, there's a notable jump in filter size (58mm to 67mm) and size (the barrel is considerably thicker). I must admit, the H-IS helps handheld macro shots a lot, but the size expansion is a real factor when your backpack is only so big.

It makes all the difference in deciding whether it's a regular starter or bench role, and in this case I chose size/cost over H-IS/L quality...

And definitely that's one thing I hope won't happen to the assumed 17-40 update (unless Canon markets it as a completely seperate option)

 

[Woody]

Yes. 1: you want low ISO, the dark end of the DR shows noise at ISO 100 w/ todays pixel density

Hmmm... With today's technology, pixel density hardly has any effect in the shadows at low ISO: 24 MP D3X vs 12 MP D3s, 18 MP 7D vs 12 MP 450D etc etc. At even higher pixel densities, Canon can cheat with the black levels like in Nikon D90.

 

[that1guy]

So I have no idea whether or not they will put the H-IS on there, but if it is like the IS on the new 100mm macro (that is what it has, right?), then I will have do disagree with most here and say that it would be good to have on this lens. My reason? Video. I heard and saw in a demonstration (I believe by Vincent Laforet, but can't remember for certain now) that the H-IS on the new macro is much better for video. There is no typical "snap" and it is a bit smoother. Not a big deal for still shots, but a huge deal for video. I could see video people snapping this up. I know it still isn't enough to make some people give up their old ones, but I think it would have a place. Just my 2 cents