New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Canon Rumors

Who Dey
Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 20, 2010
12,622
5,441
279,596
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/08/new-wide-angle-zoom-discussion-opinion/"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/08/new-wide-angle-zoom-discussion-opinion/"></a></div>
<strong>From POTN


</strong>A forum thread on POTN talks about a replacement for the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II being due based on past history..</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Quote from the thread</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><em>FD -> new FD = 6.2 years</em></li>
<li><em>new FD -> EF = 5.5 years</em></li>
<li><em>EF -> EF USM = 6.5 years</em></li>
<li><em>17-35 -> 16-35 = 5.7 years</em></li>
<li><em>16-35 -> 16-35 II = 5.3 years</em></li>
<li><em>As of today (August 2012) we are 5.4 years from the release of the 16-35L II</em></li>
</ul>
<p>There has been <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/" target="_blank">lots of talk about an EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a> since Nikon launched such a lens. I wouldn’t think this would be a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8L II, as I can’t see how it can be easily filterable (without large and expensive third party solutions).</p>
<p>If a 14-24 does indeed become the new f/2.8 ultrawide zoom in the Canon lineup, then I expect a 16-40 f/4L IS type of lens to come quickly for the landscape world and for people that need an easy filterable ultrawide. However, the Nikon 14-24 is a monster of a lens, and would be an awkward replacement for a 16-35 at weddings if you currently shoot with one (just my opinion). The widest screw-on filter lens I have seen is the still to be released <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/850101-REG/Zeiss_1964831_Distagon_T_15mm_f_2_8.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Carl Zeiss Distagon T* ZE 15mm f/2.8</a>, which has a 95mm filter thread.</p>
<p>There’s enough chatter about a new wide angle zoom, I think we can start to expect one sooner than later.</p>
<p><strong>Source:</strong> [<a href="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1217837" target="_blank">POTN</a>] via [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
 
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.
 
Upvote 0
The only way I even care about new Canon wides is if they finally become edge sharp.

Regarding the tail end of the article, when does the Zeiss 15mm finally make it to the channels? I love my Zeiss 21mm (its become my landscape walk-around) and the 15mm would complete my needs at the wide. Except for maybe a Canon TS-E 17mm or if I want to fisheye with the 8-15mm

But if Canon finally does get their sharpness at the level of some of their longer lenses... maybe I would consider. But that would mean they care about more than wedding and sports.
 
Upvote 0
markko said:
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.

You must have a really bad copy of the 16-35 mkII. The 16-35 is sharper than the 17-40 at every aperture and focal length except borders at 35 mm. This is confirmed by every review including photozone.de, and at the wide end it is as sharp at 2.8 as the 17-40 is at f4.
 
Upvote 0
Razor2012 said:
I'd actually like to see a 14-24 to fill in the gap behind the 24-70II and the 70-200 2.8II, as I don't feel the 16-35II is up to the standards of these two. Maybe even a 16-24 and keep the 82mm filters.

A sharp, light 16-24 f2.8 or 20-35 f2.8 would suit me best too, but I think we are hopelessly outnumbered by those who want a 2.5 lb brick with a bulby lens.
 
Upvote 0
Etienne said:
Razor2012 said:
I'd actually like to see a 14-24 to fill in the gap behind the 24-70II and the 70-200 2.8II, as I don't feel the 16-35II is up to the standards of these two. Maybe even a 16-24 and keep the 82mm filters.

A sharp, light 16-24 f2.8 or 20-35 f2.8 would suit me best too, but I think we are hopelessly outnumbered by those who want a 2.5 lb brick with a bulby lens.

A 16-24 2.8 that was tack sharp (same specs as the new 24-70II) would be perfect. For anyone who needs the UW end of it, there's the 14mm 2.8II. ;)
 
Upvote 0
markko said:
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.

You're the first person I've ever heard say the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 MkII. I'm going to go further and say you outright had a defective copy of the 16-35 because every tester says the 16-35 is sharper and my own experiences have reflected that.
 
Upvote 0
KitsVancouver said:
markko said:
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.

You're the first person I've ever heard say the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 MkII. I'm going to go further and say you outright had a defective copy of the 16-35 because every tester says the 16-35 is sharper and my own experiences have reflected that.

If I recall the charts correctly, the 16-35 is sharper, but has a fairly dramatic drop at the edges. The 17-40 has less of a change from center to edge - so it the perception may be less pronounced.

That or yeah, crappy 16-35 copy. But even then, I recall most of the sharpness is in the upper end of that lens - which can be handled by far better lenses. A 14-24 or even a really good 16-24 would be preferable, since just about everyone has 24 on up.
 
Upvote 0
BozillaNZ said:
I'm against a 16-24, because current 16-35 in terms of focal length, is perfect match of 70-200 and a 50 prime. Not everyone care about the joe six-pack 24-70 zoom lens.

I have that setup (16-35 f2.8II, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f2.8 IS II), and while it's good, I would prefer :

16-24 f2.8 sharp and contrasty awesomeness at all focal lengths
35 f1.4 II- awesome sharp and contrasty
70-200 2.8 IS II - incredible (already in my bag)
 
Upvote 0
I have a savings account with several thousands dollars in it release next year.

If Canon has a good EF 14-24mm by then, I'll buy EF 14-24mm + EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mk2, selling the 17-40mm along the way.

If not, I'm off to buy a Nikon FF camera + Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8
 
Upvote 0
i also own the 16-35 f/2.8 II and corner performance to me is a real issue with this lens. i would love to see a mark III with this resolved. i would love to see a 14-24 f/2.8 too, but the missing front filter possibility would be a drawback...
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.