New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]

[Jim Saunders]

Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

-Tabor

The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.

Jim

 

[Ricku]

Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

-Tabor

The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.

Jim

I don't think anyone waiting for a new version of this lens is hoping for a different zoom range.. The thing this lens needs is a big improvement in sharpness! I would never use the current 16-35L II for landscapes, not even if someone gave the lens to me for free.

I've been waiting for a new EF lens to rival the legendary Nikkor 14-24. Many people are hoping for a 14-24L, but I'm more interested in a razor sharp 16-35L III.

It is very sad that Canon still don't have a truly sharp UWA-zoom lens.

 

[wickidwombat]

Wow 16-50 F4 lame



Maybe if the 14-24 is good it will go OK with the sigma 24-70 f2 but I have zero interest in another f4 zoom unless its a super tele

 

[dlleno]

It would be a worthy successor to the 17-40 to be sure. Better zoom range 77mm, updated IS and optics. But it would be a horrible replacement for the 16-35

 

[Loswr]

I just reviewed this potential lens thread after heading to Best Buy a couple of days ago inquiring about the 16-35L. They said that though they could order it for me at their price, $1,499 prior to fixing a misquote in their system, however, the guy also said that the 16-35 had been deleted from their inventory. Being a fellow Canon photographer himself, he mentioned that they will often do this when they have intentions of a replacement product in the coming months.

Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

No validity. Best Buy is a notoriously poor prognosticator. They discontinue lots of things, only to add them back later. Has happened a few times at B&H recently, too.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

-Tabor

The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.

Jim

I don't think anyone waiting for a new version of this lens is hoping for a different zoom range.. The thing this lens needs is a big improvement in sharpness! I would never use the current 16-35L II for landscapes, not even if someone gave the lens to me for free.

I've been waiting for a new EF lens to rival the legendary Nikkor 14-24. Many people are hoping for a 14-24L, but I'm more interested in a razor sharp 16-35L III.

It is very sad that Canon still don't have a truly sharp UWA-zoom lens.

Oh boy....one born every minute....stopped down, it's more than sharp enough.

 

[Ricku]

^ Posting web sized pictures to justify your point of view is pretty silly, unless they are 100% crops. The poor corner sharpness of the 16-35L II (and 17-40L) has been proven over and over again.

They are mediocre when compared to other L zoom-lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 24-70L II, and they pale in comparison to the Nikon 14-24.

Time for an update! But the same thing can be said about a boat load of other lenses from Canon. :-\

 

[GMCPhotographics]

^ Posting web sized pictures to justify your point of view is pretty silly, unless they are 100% crops. The poor corner sharpness of the 16-35L II (and 17-40L) has been proven over and over again.

They are mediocre when compared to other L zoom-lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 24-70L II, and they pale in comparison to the Nikon 14-24.

Time for an update! But the same thing can be said about a boat load of other lenses from Canon. :-\

So you think those things you listed will make a great image any more sellable? No it won't...so I would say that the metric by which you judge a lens is way off base...and I'm sure that Canon are in no hurry to replace it becuase it's still selling well.
The sun star image would be hard to do with a 14-24mm lens...sure it might be sharper....although at f16 I seriously doubt there will be much difference in sharpness. The front element on the 14-24 is so bulbous that it's very flare prone. The 16-35IIL is very good at handling flare, far beter that the new 24-70IIL which every one seems to rave about.
The same is true with the lower image of the light house. The 14-24mm is hard to use filters (not impossible, but a PITA) and the flare issue is a serious concearn to a landscape photographer....but of corse if your only metric is wide open sharpness then yes the 14-24mm is a great lens too.

 

[mackguyver]

Oh boy....one born every minute....stopped down, it's more than sharp enough.

+1 and while in the minority, it's kind of sad to see people on here over the last few days writing off the 16-35 II, 50 1.2, and other "weak" lenses. If these people actually got out there and shot with the lenses, they'd realize that lens charts and resolution tests are just part of the picture.

When it comes to sharp enough, I shot a whole campaign for a client with the "soft" Sigma 12-24 II I used to own and yet I was still able to print (cropped) photos at 40x60" for them with no problems. The 16-35II could be better, but that doesn't mean it sucks. Photographers will always be limited by their creativity and skills, not their equipment. If you don't believe me, just wait for the inevitable posts by people claiming their Otus 55mm is soft - the same people who "only shoot handheld" ;D

 

[Woody]

The bulbous front element makes filter use difficult (like the TS-e 17L) and costly. The resolution wide open on the 14-24 is extraordinary...but stopped down (for DOF) there is little real world difference between it and the 16-35IIL.

This is why I will NEVER EVER buy lenses with bulbous front elements.

People often forget that landscape photographers almost always need to stop down.

 

[privatebydesign]

The TS-E 17 is about as bulbous as it comes, it doesn't even pretend to have a flared rim like the 14-24, however it is not flare prone, it handles light sources very well and maintains excellent contrast. There is also a cost effective filter solution for it.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The TS-E 17 is about as bulbous as it comes, it doesn't even pretend to have a flared rim like the 14-24, however it is not flare prone, it handles light sources very well and maintains excellent contrast. There is also a cost effective filter solution for it.

The TS-E 17L does attract more flare and ghosting in direct sunlight than the 16-35IIL. The new Nano coating helps a lot, but it's a big element and it's hard to shade.

 

[mackguyver]

I really like the "normal" front end of the 16-35 and would rather Canon come out with a souped-up version of that lens vs. a 14-24 (or any other range) with a bulbous front-end.

 

[mckay photography]

Very interested in a 14-24 style lens - fingers crossed!

http://www.mckayphotography.com.au

 

[tron]

Announcements in the fall

We’re told that two new wide angle zooms for full frame will be coming from Canon in the next 6-8 months. At least one of them could be announced in Q4 of 2013.
One of the lenses will be the 14-24 f/2.8L, that will complete Canon’s run of lenses covering 14mm to 560mm.

The other will be a replacement to both the 16-35 f/2.8L II and the 17-40 f/4L. We’re told one of the configurations in test is an EF 16-50 f/4L IS.

This comes from a source that has been correct in the past, although timing is always hit and miss with Canon lenses.

Sure, new wide angle lenses in 2013, announcement in the fall, etc... ;D

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Very interested in a 14-24 style lens - fingers crossed!

http://www.mckayphotography.com.au

Don't be fooled by the Nikon trolls....many wedding photographers who migrated over to the D700 a few years back, rushed out to get the Nikkor version...only the be very disapointed with the results for groups. Many then sold their and swapped to a 16-35 equivelent. The angle of view is very wide and very distored for groups...and the lack of focal range at the long end is limiting. Sure it's sharp, but that is it's only saving grace. If you need to go wider, get a 8-15L fisheye

 

[Zv]

I really like the "normal" front end of the 16-35 and would rather Canon come out with a souped-up version of that lens vs. a 14-24 (or any other range) with a bulbous front-end.

Agreed. I'd rather have something I can walk about with that covers a good range. 14-24mm would be less than ideal for groups or street. I've used the 17-40 for street and general mucking about and it's quite useful with a CP-L and light enough that you can carry it about all day, wish it had IS though. A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.

 

[mackguyver]

A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.

I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own. I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4. A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.

 

[dlleno]

A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.

I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own. I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4. A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.

seems to me there is market pressure for Canon to produce a rectilinear 14(ish)-24. its absense does seem conspicuous.

In addition, I don't see the 16-35 II going away or replaced. seems astonishing to me to suggest that, as the rumor has. Given its success in the market, and the fact that Canon appears to stick by it no matter what weaknesses the purests point out, suggests it is here to stay and probabably won't be updated any time soon. It would really surprise me if we saw a 16-35 III this year.

I see an 82mm mm 16-35 II, a 77mm 16-50 and a bulbous 14(ish)-24, all living happily together, as they would target different specialties. The extra FL, IS, and 77mm front end (I presume) of a 16-50 would be welcome advantages if f/2.8 isn't important , complementing the others, including the rumored 24-70 f/2.8 IS. THe 16-35 II is too succesful (strategically) to update it now.

BTW off the subject, but its kind of amusing to see the tricks that retailers go through to get around MAP and that is happening to the 16-35 right now. happens all the time I know, but its still amusing to think of the conversations among lawyers

 

[Sanaraken]

Im just waiting for Canon to come out with a 16-35mm f4 IS. I dont need to shoot at f2.8, but would love to have the IS.