New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion

[traveller]

People seem to be asking for three different lenses: some want an update of the 16-35mm design with higher resolution; others are willing to sacrifice some range on the long end for extra wide angle coverage; yet others want this lens to retain front mounted filter compatibility.

Even Nikon (who seem to be able to do no wrong when it comes to wide angle lenses -at least in some people's eyes) need three UWA zooms to do this!

It will be interesting to see if Canon simply update the optical design of the current 16-35mm, attempt to match Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8, or whether they try something different (the position of the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM might influence their thinking).

 

[c-law]

Can anyone explain to me if it is possible or desirable to create a UWA like a 14-24mm with a drop in filter system like the superteles. Why? Why not?

If the front elements are to bulbous to fit a filter just as the front elements on superteles are just simply too large then why don't they have this?

Chris

 

[traveller]

Can anyone explain to me if it is possible or desirable to create a UWA like a 14-24mm with a drop in filter system like the superteles. Why? Why not?

If the front elements are to bulbous to fit a filter just as the front elements on superteles are just simply too large then why don't they have this?

Chris

Pentax does drop in filters with their new 25mm (645) lens:

http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/files/news/8784334430/DA645_25FLT.jpg?v=1560

Of course, there could be further complications with a zoom lens, which may make the idea untenable (I'm no lens design expert). Even if Canon could implement this, it would still not allow the use of rectangular ND grads (at least not without specialised and expensive filters/holders).

 

[RC]

Shooting with a 7D and have a 16-35 II. I will be getting either the new FF or a 5D3, looking forward to shooting landscapes on a FF with my 16-35. What kind of issues should I expect if any (edge sharpness, CA, vignetting) shooting form 5.6 - 11 on a FF? Thanks

 

[tron]

An EF16-35 f/2.8 L III that has sharper edges than previous versions, not much vignetting and not much coma at the edges would be just fine.

 

[K-amps]

I have a 17-40mm and am ok with the focal length, however I cringe at the corner distortion. It is like when Fox TV tries to widen a SD feed to a 16:9.

Yes corner sharpness needs improvement... that goes without saying, but in group shots, it is the distortion that bothers me the most.

I would like a 16-50mm f2.8 so that I am carrying fewer lenses when I go trekking.

 

[5D Freak]

I would be stoked with a 16mm f2.8 (or even f2.0) filterable prime! Screw the zoom part to save size and cost, and to give the best image quality. Already have a 17tse (sharp but not practically filterable) and 17-40 (slow and edge softness with light falloff). A small 16mm prime would be good in the surf too!

 

[Caps18]

I have no problems with my 16-35mm II f/2.8.

I haven't looked real close at the 17TSe vs 16-35mm @17mm yet, but for a city skyline it wasn't too different in terms of sharpness. The corners were blue sky and blue water though. And it was my first time shooting the 17mm TSe, so getting the focus just right was different.

 

[marekjoz]

There are some interesting concepts pending:
1. Patent from March 2, 2012: EF 17-40 f/2.8-4L - http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/patent-canon-17-40-f2-8-4l/
2. Patent from August 2011: EF 16-35 F 2.8 DO - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/08/canon-16-35-f2-8-do-patent/
3. Patent from April 2011: EFS 11 f/2 - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-s-11mm-f2-patent/
4. From November 2009 - EF 15-24/F3.5-4.5 Fish eye zoom - http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2009-11-27
5. From December 2009 - EF14-24 f/2.8L - http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/
6. Finally from March 2012 - new EF16-35mm f/2.8, EF17-35mm f/2.8-4, EF16-35mm f/2-2.8 - http://photorumors.com/2012/03/29/canon-patents-for-a-16-35mm-f2-8-lens-and-2-8x-teleconverter/

It would also be great to see some lenses of this kind: http://www.canonwatch.com/liquid-lens-patent-by-canon-and-video/

Any of the above mentioned concepts, if produced and offered the difference in quality like between the old and new 24-70 (as promised so far) would be a great step forward better quality in the wide end range. In my opinion the best moment for introducing a new wide killer would be while showing the high MP body - the perfect landscape combo.

 

[Axilrod]

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.

Yeah I love the 21mm as well, it's ridiculously sharp for a wide angle. As for the 15mm, I think some people have already gotten their hands on it (in Europe at least), but I've seen some tests and it blows the 14L II away. Then again it is almost $3k and takes 95mm filters (but at the same time the 14L doesn't take filters at all).

 

[preppyak]

3. Patent from April 2011: EFS 11 f/2 - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-s-11mm-f2-patent/

Actually, this one was a lens for a projector; not for a DSLR

 

[Otter]

I would love to see a 16-35 III, as well as a 14-24 f/2.8! Wider and sharper Canon!

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

My impression from reviews is that Nikon's equivalents to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (the 17-35mm f/2.8) and EF 17-40mm f/4 (the 16–35 mm f/4 VR) do not have the kind of advantage which would make people switch to Nikon, or prefer it in the first place.

Though the 16-35 & 17-40 would benefit from an upgrade, IMHO Canon's priority would be a lens to compete with the 14-24mm.

 

[marekjoz]

My impression from reviews is that Nikon's equivalents to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (the 17-35mm f/2.8) and EF 17-40mm f/4 (the 16–35 mm f/4 VR) do not have the kind of advantage which would make people switch to Nikon, or prefer it in the first place.

Though the 16-35 & 17-40 would benefit from an upgrade, IMHO Canon's priority would be a lens to compete with the 14-24mm.

Looking on TDP at comparisons between those lenses it looks like Nikons are worse than Canons in edges (less resolution, more CA) but slightly better in midframe. Tests are achieved with the use of different cameras, but intending the switch, one should consider the combo, not lenses alone.

N 14-24 F2.8 vs C 16-35 F.28 II, N 16-35 F4 vs C 17-40 F4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=689&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

As I read those resolutions charts I conclude, that N 17-35 2.8 is a complete disaster.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=616&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2