Patent: A new 16-35 f/2.8 or Faster Concept?

[briansquibb]

I get a Nikon D800E to test in a couple of weeks and if it looks as good as I hope, I'll be selling all my Canon gear. CPS has sucked for the longest time and Nikon here in Canada seems to be going out of their way to build goodwill among them. You know the old saying about number two.

Translating Nikon being number two from Cockney Rhyming slang is an interesting observation ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[dadgummit]

So the list is:

A 16-35/2.8 is likely to be similar in cost, weight and issues to the current one. It would also be more expensive than the 16-35/2.8 II if it fixed sharpness/field curvature.

A 17-35/2.8-4 is likely to be similar in weight to the existing lenses and priced somewhere between the 17-40 and 16-35. If it doesn't fix the field curvature problems (which I'm hoping it will due to variable aperture) and corner sharpness then it may as well not exist.

A 16-35/2-2.8 will cost and weight more than the 16-35 but it may fix issues to do with field curvature and corner sharpness. I have trouble seeing filters work easily with this lens.

Though it would be wonderful if true I do not believe any improved lens will be even close to the current pricing. Canon has been raising the prices of their improved products by 50-75% over the old price so i would expect the 16-35 f2.8 III to cost about $2300 and if there was a f2-2.8 version that would probably be closer to $3000. Our only hope is the 17-35 f2.8-4 that may "only" cost $1600 or so but if it had good corners and distortion I would be happy to loose the stop of light on the long end.

 

[ddewit]

When? Does anybody have a clue when this 16-35 2.8 or 2.0/2.8 will be here?

 

[peederj]

We need a standard format for filters that go into the back or side of a lens and slide in and out. Some of the big whites have a way of doing this, at the wide side perhaps even more important due to landscapes and nd grads. Ideally, a format you can adjust for grads and polarisers. But don't patent it, make it an open standard.

Oh and btw my 16-35L II is really impressive. Do I need faster than 2.8 that wide on FF? I don't see it personally. I don't want some lame soft LOCA-ridden wider aperture just for the sake of having it.

 

[ddewit]

Does anyone know when the new lens will be available? I'm thinking of buying the 16-35..

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

A 16-35/2.8 is likely to be similar in cost, weight and issues to the current one. It would also be more expensive than the 16-35/2.8 II if it fixed sharpness/field curvature.

The cost may be more if the price increase from the 24-70mm to the 24-70mm mark II is anything to go by.

 

[preppyak]

Does anyone know when the new lens will be available? I'm thinking of buying the 16-35..

Well, these are theoretical lenses, so, it's impossible to say when it will be released. It might get announced before photo shows in April, it might wait til summer, it might never get released. The 5dIII "release date" rumors trace back to fall of 2010....so, anyone who waited based on that rumor waited a year and a half for the update.

If you need a wide-angle lens, go with the best available option now. If you don't need it, well, then you have the option to wait

 

[ddewit]

ok thanks.

 

[wickidwombat]

I think i would run around like a school girl at a justin beiber concert screaming if they released a constant aperture f2.0 16-35

I would like to see that!

If they make the lens i'll video the reaction and post it on youtube

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

I'd love an ultra-wide zoom with f/2 at the wide side, but I'd probably have to sell a kidney to buy it.

So I would settle for a reasonably priced 14-24mm f/4 with good IQ - theres a 14mm f/2.8 & 16-35mm f/2.8 for those who want fast.

I'd agree with this. I have the 14mm L II. I also have the 16-35 II and 24-70. Major distortion to the extent that shot sI took of a distant harbour when looking closely the cranes have 'fallen down'. I see no real need for IS at this level though