Will Canon be making a 16-35 f/2.8 IS anytime soon?

[ddashti]

Nikon has patented for a 16-35mm f/2.8 VR lens (VR of Nikon is the equivalent of the IS of Canon).
Does Canon plan on making an equivalent of Nikon's recently patented lens?

 

[Drizzt321]

Well, Nikon may have no intention of releasing a 16-35 VR. A lot of the lens designs that are patented never turn into real products.

There are some rumors of a Canon 14-24mm, but until we get significantly better information, I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[tron]

This is a rumors site. That does not exclude negative rumors. So I say ... NO!

OK I have no inside information but it the most logical. 16-35mm f/2.8 lenses have the same diameter more or less with 24-70mm f/2.8 L lenses.
And we all know how many 24-70 2.8 L IS lenses exist ;D ;D ;D

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Nikon has patented for a 16-35mm f/2.8 VR lens (VR of Nikon is the equivalent of the IS of Canon).
Does Canon plan on making an equivalent of Nikon's recently patented lens?

Going by the recent 24-70 f/2.8 L II, I do not think Canon will release an IS version of 16-35 L anytime soon.

 

[emag]

Nikon has patented for a 16-35mm f/2.8 VR lens (VR of Nikon is the equivalent of the IS of Canon).
Does Canon plan on making an equivalent of Nikon's recently patented lens?

No

 

[Dylan777]

It would be nice to have either 14-24 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f2.8 IS.....IS can be really useful for night time landscape.

 

[Canon-F1]

It would be nice to have either 14-24 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f2.8 IS.....IS can be really useful for night time landscape.

you better use a tripod for that.

 

[RS2021]

It would be nice to have either 14-24 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f2.8 IS.....IS can be really useful for night time landscape.

you better use a tripod for that.

No...he is waiting for that really fast f/1 on the 14-24mm ....except he would also like an IS that gives him 10 stops of stabilization. Clearly it easier than using a tripod with the currently available lenses.

 

[robbymack]

Yes and it will be $6000

 

[tron]

Yes and it will be $6000

Or 60000 ;D

 

[crasher8]

Nothing wrong with being into lowkey wide nighttime images. I for one would welcome a handheld UWA zoom from Canon that actually has sharp(er) corners.
Frigging UWA zoom shopping is KILLING me.

 

[RS2021]

I for one would welcome a handheld UWA zoom from Canon that actually has sharp(er) corners.
Frigging UWA zoom shopping is KILLING me.

Nothing, not even a yet to be conceived super-duper zoom, is going to make everyone perfectly content. They will be nitpicking something else with that.

All things considered, current 16-35L II is a competent UWA.

 

[cpsico]

It would be waste to add IS to this lens I have taken great shots at 1/6 of second hand held non is, better to work on IQ at lower apertures at f8 it is amazing!

 

[Haydn1971]

Going on recent form, I'd expect both a f2.8 20mm IS and a f4 14mm IS in consumer formats

How's that for a rumour ! < note the use of the "u" ;-)

 

[candyman]

I for one would welcome a handheld UWA zoom from Canon that actually has sharp(er) corners.
Frigging UWA zoom shopping is KILLING me.

Nothing, not even a yet to be conceived super-duper zoom, is going to make everyone perfectly content. They will be nitpicking something else with that.

All things considered, current 16-35L II is a competent UWA.

Just bought and used it, and I agree

 

[crasher8]

1400 USD for 'competent' is a tough pill to swallow. I think the 17-40 is priced right.(699)You get what you pay for with that one but as for the 16-35, the one stop in light and not very much and according to others, no better in the corners for twice as much?

 

[pwp]

1400 USD for 'competent' is a tough pill to swallow. I think the 17-40 is priced right.(699)You get what you pay for with that one but as for the 16-35, the one stop in light and not very much and according to others, no better in the corners for twice as much?

If you were to track the 16-35 f/2.8II price since launch, you'll see that it dropped a LOT. Historically, I'd regard $1400 as a great buy for this lens. Agreed, the 17-40 f/4 is seriously good value at $699, and it will match the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8II once past f/5.6. If it's important for your shooting style to have the option of shooting commercial quality files at f/2.8, then the 16-35 f/2.8II will be your UWA zoom of choice.

Back on topic, I don't think the 16-35 lens needs IS. It's already bulky in the weight and size department and IS would necessitate a chunky price hike. Personally I shoot with the 17-40 f/4 as my UWA work generally needs f/8-f/11. Any update on the 16-35 should be directed at the difficult to solve IQ issues.

The lens that will grab my attention is the 14-24 f/2.8, Canon's current daydream special.

-PW

 

[christianronnel]

I just ordered the 16-35II on Amazon for $1300. I figured there's no point in waiting for a rumored lens. I hope it performs better than what most people are saying about it. I tested both the 17-40 and the 16-35 at a local rental shop. The 16-35 had sharper edges at f11 than the 17-40. It's not as sharp as 24-70II but sharp enough.

It would be nice to have either 14-24 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f2.8 IS.....IS can be really useful for night time landscape.

Personally, I prefer being able to use filters rather than having IS for UWA lens. Canon patent for the 14-24 design doesn't look like filter is possible. I also hope Canon creates something like a 12-20mm non-fisheye lens design.

 

[RS2021]

I just ordered the 16-35II on Amazon for $1300. I figured there's no point in waiting for a rumored lens.

Smart call. Congrats.

 

[wickidwombat]

1400 USD for 'competent' is a tough pill to swallow. I think the 17-40 is priced right.(699)You get what you pay for with that one but as for the 16-35, the one stop in light and not very much and according to others, no better in the corners for twice as much?

If you were to track the 16-35 f/2.8II price since launch, you'll see that it dropped a LOT. Historically, I'd regard $1400 as a great buy for this lens. Agreed, the 17-40 f/4 is seriously good value at $699, and it will match the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8II once past f/5.6. If it's important for your shooting style to have the option of shooting commercial quality files at f/2.8, then the 16-35 f/2.8II will be your UWA zoom of choice.

Back on topic, I don't think the 16-35 lens needs IS. It's already bulky in the weight and size department and IS would necessitate a chunky price hike. Personally I shoot with the 17-40 f/4 as my UWA work generally needs f/8-f/11. Any update on the 16-35 should be directed at the difficult to solve IQ issues.

The lens that will grab my attention is the 14-24 f/2.8, Canon's current daydream special.

-PW

I personally feel the 16-35 II is significantly better than the 17-40 the extra stop is big if you use it