# Another Mention of an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 8, 2016)

```
We’ve received another mention of an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III. We’re told the announcement for the lens could come at any time, as the lens is “done”.</p>
<p>We have no firm announcement date, as that is always a difficult thing to nail down with lenses. With the arrival of the EOS-1D X Mark II, it makes sense that a new L lens would follow relatively quickly.</p>
<p>We do not expect to see it for the CP+ show at the end of this month.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 8, 2016)

I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well. If it's too expensive, I'm going to spring for the 11-24mm, which will let me get shots so wide that very few other photojournalists could get them. Especially if the 1Dx Mark II has a 1-stop improvement in ISO handling when I get it later this year.


----------



## adventureous (Feb 8, 2016)

It's Super Bowl halftime right now, and with this announcement, it feels like I just won !!


----------



## dolina (Feb 8, 2016)

I would bet good money that a 1D X Mark II and the Series III 16-35mm are at Super Bowl 50.

I hope that Canon instead releases a 16-35/2.8 with IS.


----------



## tron (Feb 8, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well. If it's too expensive, I'm going to spring for the 11-24mm, which will let me get shots so wide that very few other photojournalists could get them. Especially if the 1Dx Mark II has a 1-stop improvement in ISO handling when I get it later this year.


This is interesting perspective. However, 16-35 2.8 III will be smaller, lighter, will take filters and it will be easier to handle.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2016)

Better sell my 16-35 f4 this week...

Now bring on the 50mm 1.2 II L!


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 8, 2016)

tron said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well. If it's too expensive, I'm going to spring for the 11-24mm, which will let me get shots so wide that very few other photojournalists could get them. Especially if the 1Dx Mark II has a 1-stop improvement in ISO handling when I get it later this year.
> ...



That's completely true, but as a PJ I'm used to carrying supertelephotos(not just at sports events!) and heavy bodies all day which makes me not adverse to carrying a 11-24. Filters also aren't much of an issue to me. One of the PJs at a sister paper uses a Nikon 14-24mm F/2.8 for almost every assignment.

I'm sure PJs aren't the only market for the 16-35mm F/2.8, but I know it has to be a big one, and if the lens ends up being $2,000+ then it'll be hard for me to justify versus an 11-24mm, which I've found deals for at $2,500. 

I know this lens is a must for many marketable people that absolutely need filters, but this is just a PJ perspective.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > H. Jones said:
> ...



I don't believe there is a big market for f2.8 users who must use filters, I believe the point is f2.8, which with increased iso capabilities has certainly lost its importance especially in the ultra wide end.

For me, I moved from the pretty bad performing 16-35 f2.8's to the wonderful 16-35 f4 IS and then on to the 11-24 f4. My favourite so far is the 16-35 f4IS, go figure.


----------



## YellowJersey (Feb 8, 2016)

And here I just bought the 16-35 f/4 (workhorse) and the Tamron 15-30 2.8 (astro) due to the plummeting Canadian dollar and a looming price increase. I was holding out for the 16-35 2.8 III, but the dollar panic caused a... well... panic. (also happened to be in Calgary when I bought them, so I only paid 5% tax instead of 13% tax in Ontario where I'm currently living). Pulled the trigger since I know the capabilities of these lenses and they do exactly what I want them to do. The mk III is still so much of an unkown. I'm sure it'll be good, but whether it will be good for the stars is the huge unknown. If it isn't then there's no point. 

So since the f/4 and the Tamron do what I want, the mk III is going to have to be pretty spectacular to get me to switch. As things stand, I have a feeling I won't be switching.


----------



## RGF (Feb 8, 2016)

Be nice if this lens took 77mm filters, though I suspect Canon will go with 82mm.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 8, 2016)

I'm very keen on this lens but the f/4.0 IS version is pretty damn impressive too.

Perhaps the biggest factor for me will be the pricing. This will basically be my landscape lens and I rarely do astro more than twice a year.

I hope Canon surprises us with a reasonable price for this!


----------



## Nininini (Feb 8, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well.


_
If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it_...is a good rule of thumb with these lenses.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 8, 2016)

Nininini said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I've said this before, but I really hope Canon prices this lens very well.
> ...



That's a bit harsh, as someone buying the 1DX mark II I don't think there's any discussion on if I can afford it. I make my entire living off my photography, everything is just a business expense for me. 

The point of my post was that if this lens costs $2,000, I'd rather buy the 11-24mm for $2,500, since I'd get a much wider angle of view from that for almost the same price.


----------



## Nininini (Feb 8, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> That's a bit harsh, as someone buying the 1DX mark II I don't think there's any discussion on if I can afford it.



Eh, it's just an expression, if you ask the price of expensive stuff, you often can't afford it. Photography is just a hobby I enjoy for myself, I'm not going to get any benefit out of professional lenses.




H. Jones said:


> everything is just a business expense for me



Ah, who do you work for?


----------



## cenkog (Feb 8, 2016)

Still no IS, no purchase, in this video age, simple is that... 



Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve received another mention of an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III. We’re told the announcement for the lens could come at any time, as the lens is “done”.</p>
> <p>We have no firm announcement date, as that is always a difficult thing to nail down with lenses. With the arrival of the EOS-1D X Mark II, it makes sense that a new L lens would follow relatively quickly.</p>
> <p>We do not expect to see it for the CP+ show at the end of this month.</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 8, 2016)

Nininini said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > That's a bit harsh, as someone buying the 1DX mark II I don't think there's any discussion on if I can afford it.
> ...



$2k is a huge expense for me. Huge. I don't earn money with my hobby. However, I like to have nice things. I've no kids at home. If I can raise the money I'll get one in the next couple of years if it performs well. Same with the 1DX.

Personally I get great benefit from pro lenses as a hobbyist, but everyone makes their own choices. I've got only two hobbies: Photography and guns. I'd trade all but one of my guns for a good ATV to get me way out in the desert to shoot photos.


----------



## nicksotgiu (Feb 8, 2016)

YEAS!! ;D


----------



## infared (Feb 8, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > H. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 8, 2016)

I'm sure a 16-35mm F2.8 III will do well for Canon,
At a number of indoor events I'd have loved an extra stop of light.
But I have to say I'm very happy with the 16-35mm F4.
I think its a great lens.
I might wait until the 16-35mm F2.8 IV IS before getting a 16-35mm F2.8 III


----------



## ewg963 (Feb 8, 2016)

dolina said:


> I would bet good money that a 1D X Mark II and the Series III 16-35mm are at Super Bowl 50.
> 
> I hope that Canon instead releases a 16-35/2.8 with IS.


+100000000 fingers crossed about the IS!!!!


----------



## romanr74 (Feb 8, 2016)

ewg963 said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > I would bet good money that a 1D X Mark II and the Series III 16-35mm are at Super Bowl 50.
> ...



and then complain about size and weight... :


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> ewg963 said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



People always say that and it really isn't true. The difference between the 70-200 f 4 IS and non IS is less than 2oz (75g) and they are the same size, the 70-200 f2.8 IS and non IS (of the same generation) is 5oz (160g), and the IS version is 1/10 of an inch fatter and 2/10 inch longer (1mm and 3mm).


----------



## Pixel (Feb 8, 2016)

Debating. 
I have the 11-24 and on a full frame body it's just too wide. If you're photographing people, which I do mostly, it's almost unusable at 11mm. On the 7D2 it's wonderful. But I'm using my 7D2's less and less with the arrival of my 1Dx and soon to be additional 1Dx or 1Dx2. I'm thinking a straight up trade might be in order.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2016)

Pixel said:


> Debating.
> I have the 11-24 and on a full frame body it's just too wide. If you're photographing people, which I do mostly, it's almost unusable at 11mm. On the 7D2 it's wonderful. But I'm using my 7D2's less and less with the arrival of my 1Dx and soon to be additional 1Dx or 1Dx2. I'm thinking a straight up trade might be in order.



Life is full of contradictions. You can't be too skinny--or too wide--or too rich.

Actually, I would be torn about turning in my f/4IS for a new 2.8, but I haven't been doing indoor events (including weddings) for about a year now. (Children change everything.)

So, on second thought, not an automatic purchase right away.

Maybe I'm maturing--I actually agree with two PBD posts in one thread!


----------



## InterMurph (Feb 8, 2016)

I am very much looking forward to this lens. I use my 16-35mm f/2.8l II at many events, and I am always bummed out by the edge softness.

I have been reading about how great the 16-35mm f/4L IS is in comparison, and I am jealous. But I'm just not willing to give up a full stop on a lens I use indoors for the most part.

So I will definitely get the 16-35mm f/2.8L III.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 8, 2016)

YellowJersey, what's the relative sharpness of the Tammy versus the f/4 where their ranges overlap? I tested both lenses and was disappointed by the Canon, so I bought the Tamron. I'm curious to hear others' opinions, as it might be that I was testing a bum copy. Thanks.



YellowJersey said:


> And here I just bought the 16-35 f/4 (workhorse) and the Tamron 15-30 2.8 (astro) due to the plummeting Canadian dollar and a looming price increase. I was holding out for the 16-35 2.8 III, but the dollar panic caused a... well... panic. (also happened to be in Calgary when I bought them, so I only paid 5% tax instead of 13% tax in Ontario where I'm currently living). Pulled the trigger since I know the capabilities of these lenses and they do exactly what I want them to do. The mk III is still so much of an unkown. I'm sure it'll be good, but whether it will be good for the stars is the huge unknown. If it isn't then there's no point.
> 
> So since the f/4 and the Tamron do what I want, the mk III is going to have to be pretty spectacular to get me to switch. As things stand, I have a feeling I won't be switching.


----------



## jmoya (Feb 8, 2016)

They need to stop making so many II and III lenses and focus on whats killing them. Dynamic Range in their bodies. I have a 5 d mark III and shoot at lowest ISO possible and I still get noise in my blacks. Canon lenses are already really good. Throw some R&D into DR!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2016)

jmoya said:


> They need to stop making so many II and III lenses and focus on whats killing them. Dynamic Range in their bodies. I have a 5 d mark III and shoot at lowest ISO possible and I still get noise in my blacks. Canon lenses are already really good. Throw some R&D into DR!!!!!!!!!!



Off topic.

Expose correctly.

I'm guessing somebody thought this would be a funny first post. I took the bait anyway.


----------



## Viper28 (Feb 8, 2016)

Launch lens to go with the shiny new 5D4? :


----------



## livingunique (Feb 8, 2016)

Viper28 said:


> Launch lens to go with the shiny new 5D4? :



This is what I'm hoping. I do a lot of indoor events and this lens paired with a new 5D4 would be awesome.


----------



## YellowJersey (Feb 8, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> YellowJersey, what's the relative sharpness of the Tammy versus the f/4 where their ranges overlap? I tested both lenses and was disappointed by the Canon, so I bought the Tamron. I'm curious to hear others' opinions, as it might be that I was testing a bum copy. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't had the chance to do much of a comparison. I've had the lenses for less than a month, but so far I'm pretty impressed with both. I do intend to do a side by side comparison. I was out on the ice on Lake Huron two days ago with the Canon and, if the back of the camera is anything to go on, I'm pretty impressed with the sharpness over my old 17-40. 

I'll get back to you when I go out and test these lenses. In the meantime, I do recommend Dustin Abbott's review (both on this website and his youtube page). He does a very comprehensive comparison of these two. 

I wanted to go with just the Tamron, but I do mostly landscape shooting and the filters for the Tamron are too big and clunky to be practical, especially since I do a lot of hiking and cycling trips where space is at a premium and I need to be very conscious of weight. That's why I was waiting on the 16-35 2.8 III, but the Canadian dollar decided to jump out of a plane. I suppose, if the mk III is better, I could sell my f/4 and the Tamron and buy the 2.8 at a minimal loss. We'll see.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Feb 8, 2016)

I watched closely at the end of the Super Bowl last night to see what lenses were used. Mostly 16-35 L lenses it seems, but I was shocked at how many 11-24 lenses I saw there too. It is obvious the guys holding the cameras way above their heads could not see the LCD or viewfinder, they were just holding down the shutter button and ripping away hundreds of shots and guessing where to point. The 11mm might be handy to make sure none of the important scene elements were cropped out. 

I also saw a single 14mm II prime, some Nikon 14-24's, and even a couple Tamron 15-30 lenses.

I would love to see a new 16-35 L III if it has less vignetting and better sharpness in the corners over the previous version. They also need to keep the number of aperture blades the same. The v2 of the lens has some of the best sun stars of any lens ever made.


----------



## tron (Feb 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


There is a market for event photographers (but then I do not belong to it). However, a 2.8 version with the quality of the f/4 IS lens would serve as both a landscape lens and as a (landscape) astrophotography lens. Using my 14 2.8 at night in a place where cars were passing by I felt the need for a 16-35 which will NOT have a bulbuous element and it will have a hood at the same time. Other than that 16-35 f/4 IS really rocks!


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Feb 8, 2016)

tron said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > H. Jones said:
> ...


+1

f2.8 lenses might not be a "huge" market, but they are becoming very popular among landscape shooters who want a single lens that does it all. Better to carry a fast UWA zoom than and extra lens just for astro landscapes. The 16-35 design is a great do-it-all design for a landscape lens that can be left on the camera without lens swaps or added weight of additional gear.


----------



## infared (Feb 8, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> YellowJersey, what's the relative sharpness of the Tammy versus the f/4 where their ranges overlap? I tested both lenses and was disappointed by the Canon, so I bought the Tamron. I'm curious to hear others' opinions, as it might be that I was testing a bum copy. Thanks.



Interesting.
I sold my Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 II to buy the f/4.0L IS, upon release simply after reading extensively. I was very happy. So happy that I sold my cherished Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon(GREAT Lens! :'() as I just stopped using it. I was not aware of this Tamron 15-30mm during my change-over...perhaps it was not available at that time...not sure?
I am surprised at your findings...though. I am continually impressed with the edge sharpness of my copy of the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS. The only input I have here is to use TDP's lens comparison tool and it shows the Tamron to have considerable CA and (some) loss of sharpness in the corners @f/4.0 compared to my Canon.
I know that there are variations in copies...etc...so maybe that is what you experienced. Still....Canon's quality control is very good, especially on L lenses.
The Tamron does have the 2.8...but it is somewhat soft....With my lens on a 5D III at f/4 and a bump up in ISO and some good processing I think it would be a interesting comparison with the Tamron.
Dustin Abbott does speak very highly of the Tamron (and uses it...I guess THAT is an endorsement!), after spending a lot of time with both lenses.
I do not shoot Astro so....that aspect of these lenses does not enter into my consideration.
I also have the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 to augment my SuperWide Zoom. That is like its own interesting animal, from the standpoint of bokeh and low light shooting....but I digress....LOL!.

TDP comparison here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=986&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## infared (Feb 8, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> I watched closely at the end of the Super Bowl last night to see what lenses were used. Mostly 16-35 L lenses it seems, but I was shocked at how many 11-24 lenses I saw there too. It is obvious the guys holding the cameras way above their heads could not see the LCD or viewfinder, they were just holding down the shutter button and ripping away hundreds of shots and guessing where to point. The 11mm might be handy to make sure none of the important scene elements were cropped out.
> 
> I also saw a single 14mm II prime, some Nikon 14-24's, and even a couple Tamron 15-30 lenses.
> 
> I would love to see a new 16-35 L III if it has less vignetting and better sharpness in the corners over the previous version. They also need to keep the number of aperture blades the same. The v2 of the lens has some of the best sun stars of any lens ever made.



You have me laughing here...We are all nutz! Lens Spotting. I love it. That must be one huge & impressively sharp TV that you have there!!!!!


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2016)

tron said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > H. Jones said:
> ...



I never met an event photographer that used filters!

My point was not that there is no market for f2.8 lenses, there is, my point was the main difference between the 11-24 and the 16-36 f2.8's was not that the former can't take filters it is that one stop of aperture. If you can get by with f4 you already have two superb choices for ultrawide, but if you need f2.8, and fewer than ever do, then you don't have any great choices.


----------



## YellowJersey (Feb 8, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



That was my thinking in holding out for the mk III. That said, Canon lenses, as wonderful as they are, haven't historically been great for astro. Even the 14mm 2.8 II apparently isn't very good. All the top astro lenses also have that bulbous front element, so it makes me curious as to whether a non-bulbous front element can compete when it comes to coma in astro. I'm wondering if there's something inherent to design of a bulbous front element that makes it better (14mm 2.8 II notwithstanding).

SPECULATION: As megapixel count rises, UWAs could be more and more valuable as you have more resolution to work with. TheCameraStoreTV did an experiment with the 16-35 2.8 II shooting an airshow with the 5Ds. They just cropped and still got some nice results. Eventually, it could reach a point where you have so much resolution to work with that you just shoot crazy wide and crop whatever bits you need, similar to how 4k video shooters can downres the footage to 1080 for their wide shots and then crop for the narrow shots all from the same recording. I mean, when we get 120mp sensors, you're going to have plenty of room to work with.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2016)

jmoya said:


> They need to stop making so many II and III lenses and focus on whats killing them. Dynamic Range in their bodies. I have a 5 d mark III and shoot at lowest ISO possible and I still get noise in my blacks. Canon lenses are already really good. Throw some R&D into DR!!!!!!!!!!



Can you post some of your examples of unacceptable quality?


----------



## tron (Feb 8, 2016)

YellowJersey said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


14 2.8 II is not perfect but it is decent. Now, judging from 16-15 f/4 IS' excellent very low coma behavior I believe that the 16-35 2.8 III will excell too...


----------



## shawnc (Feb 8, 2016)

Any thoughts on what this release might do to the price of the 16-35 f/4 IS? I'm about to buy, but if a $100+ price drop might be coming soon, I can wait.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 8, 2016)

shawnc said:


> Any thoughts on what this release might do to the price of the 16-35 f/4 IS? I'm about to buy, but if a $100+ price drop might be coming soon, I can wait.


No influence.
An updated 16-35 F2.8 will not change the price of F4 IS version, which is already low.


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 8, 2016)

Personally, I still love my 16-35 2.8 mkII.
I use it for magazine shoots of buildings and interiors and it does a stellar job.
I also use it for events where it performs admirably. 

I doubt that I'll be upgrading it in the near future.


----------



## David Littleboy (Feb 9, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Better sell my 16-35 f4 this week...
> 
> Now bring on the 50mm 1.2 II L!



I'd recommend _NOT_ selling. The 16-35/4 IS is one sharp lens, and doing significantly better is unlikely. Unless you are shooting moving subjects, one should be much happier at f/5.6 + IS on the f/4 IS lens than at f/2.8 on the faster lens: sharper overall, much sharper corners, more DOF, and ability to shoot at one stop lower ISO (if you really get 3 stops from the IS). And that's even if the f/2.8 is a better lens at the same f stops.

Here, the 24-70/2.8 II is just a joy since it's so sharp, but for the above reasons, I'm thinking of also getting the 24-70/4.0 IS. Kinda funny that a _slower_ lens is interesting for night photography.


----------



## RGF (Feb 9, 2016)

jmoya said:


> They need to stop making so many II and III lenses and focus on whats killing them. Dynamic Range in their bodies. I have a 5 d mark III and shoot at lowest ISO possible and I still get noise in my blacks. Canon lenses are already really good. Throw some R&D into DR!!!!!!!!!!



agree that improved DR would be nice. So would lens that have low CA, are sharp in the corners, ....


A good body will not fix a bad lens.


----------



## TAW (Feb 9, 2016)

infared said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > I watched closely at the end of the Super Bowl last night to see what lenses were used. Mostly 16-35 L lenses it seems, but I was shocked at how many 11-24 lenses I saw there too. It is obvious the guys holding the cameras way above their heads could not see the LCD or viewfinder, they were just holding down the shutter button and ripping away hundreds of shots and guessing where to point. The 11mm might be handy to make sure none of the important scene elements were cropped out.
> ...



I was "Lens Spotting" and pausing the TV after the Super Bowl and I turned around to see my family and friends getting a good laugh! We are nutz but it is a lot of fun! In 5 minutes, I had them all helping me... Unfortunately, I think I need a sharper TV! ;D


----------



## Nininini (Feb 9, 2016)

jmoya said:


> They need to stop making so many II and III lenses and focus on whats killing them.
> 
> Dynamic Range in their bodies.
> 
> Throw some R&D into DR!!!!!!!!!!



I love complaints about dynamic range.

1. No photographer can accurately explain what they mean with dynamic range.

2. The term "dynamic range" like some photographers use it, means nothing like what it means in science. When a scientist says "dynamic range", they are talking about things like hyperspectral imaging, not photography.

3. I have NEVER seen an actual professional photographer complain about dynamic range, ever. I have talked to several professional photographers, you know, people actually employed as journalists and or sports photographers, I have never seen any of them say anything about dynamic range. This whining about dynamic range is a very recent thing, it's like the new things to do apparently. My mother was a professional photographer for decades, she never heard the term.

4. None of the manufacturers use the same scale to define dynamic range, it's like comparing MTF charts accross brands, it makes no sense to do it.

5. The tests that sites like DxOMark use to test dynamic range, are things they made up themselves. There is no scientific basis for those tests. I love DPReview using DxOMark scores to trash Canon cameras, even though they don't really know what they're talking about when you read their replies to comments.

6. HDR photography tends to looks like S___.

7. Canon should just change their dynamic range scale so it doubles, and it would instantly bring over all the Nikon and Sony gearheads who are more worried about pointless specs than photography.


Here is one of those "pros" whining about dynamic range. He's claiming his rock is too dark because his camera's dynamic range wasn't high enough. 

Maybe............just maybe...............it's because he didn't expose properly.

He then goes on saying eyes have more dynamic range, and they would see the rock differently. Yes eyes see the rock differently, because they don't expose just once, we constantly change our pupil, and we can have different exposures in different areas, because we can activate and deactivate certain cells, it has didly squat to do with dynamic range.


----------



## riker (Feb 9, 2016)

1) Really noone else thinks it should be a 16-40/2.8 or at LEAST a 15-35/2.8?!?!?

2) I don't see why people are bringing up 11-24 they are soooo different lenses for different tasks.

I really had enough of lens upgrades which are about a bit better optical performance but nothing else, often even heavier, and most certainly way more expensive!

I use the 16-35 II ever since it was available. I'm satisfied with it's performance. The same lens with better optical quality will not help my life at all, will not result in visibly better images. If it's lighter, smaller, has wider zoom range, that would help.


----------



## tron (Feb 9, 2016)

riker said:


> 1) Really noone else thinks it should be a 16-40/2.8 or at LEAST a 15-35/2.8?!?!?
> 
> 2) I don't see why people are bringing up 11-24 they are soooo different lenses for different tasks.
> 
> ...


If you are satisfied with it there is no reason to complain or get a new version. 

Do you shoot landscape (astro or not) though?


----------



## et31 (Feb 9, 2016)

TAW said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...



LOLOLO! Lens spotting is fun. At the beginning it was fascinating to see what lenses they were using at the World Cup Soccer games...but now actually shooting like them, there are very few (if any) new surprises. I would love to be able to spot the "1Dx MII" in the video footage, but statistically, I will see the Moby Dick lens before the body model. 









Stormtrooper much? It would be amazing if someone 'shopped a Canon 800mm lens in place of the gun.
Then we could have uniforms to go with our lenses at a sporting event!


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 9, 2016)

I'm sure each company measures dynamic range differently and its hard to describe equally to everyone but I'd find it strange you'd think it doesn't matter. Maybe you don't do landscape photography.
Not every scene can be exposed correctly with a modern DSLR. Parts of the image can be simultaneously be over exposed and under exposed. That's why LEE have built a business selling graduated filters.
It allows you underexpose the sky and overexpose the ground.
Wouldn't it be great to have a camera with great dynamic range (however that is defined) that can cope with conditions of bright and dark and neither over expose or under expose sections of the photo.
I'd say it's certainly something Canon are working towards but there are probably alot of trade-offs.
In camera HDR is pretty effective and exposure blending so there are other options currently.
If one of the major companies develops a sensor which is a great leap forward in terms of dynamic range it will be a significant advantage.




Nininini said:


> jmoya said:
> 
> 
> > They need to stop making so many II and III lenses and focus on whats killing them.
> ...


----------



## infared (Feb 9, 2016)

et31 said:


> TAW said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



OK....this is officially getting scary! LOL!


----------



## scottkinfw (Feb 10, 2016)

What part of Texas are you from?



CanonFanBoy said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > H. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Feb 10, 2016)

+1



Viper28 said:


> Launch lens to go with the shiny new 5D4? :


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > 5. The tests that sites like DxOMark use to test dynamic range, are things they made up themselves. There is no scientific basis for those tests.
> ...



Why, he is not a scientist! 

Besides, neither DXO nor Imatest test DR as is laid out in the ISO standard, that doesn't mean they are not 'scientific' it does however mean their results are entirely arbitrary and are not suitable for comparisons across each other, and they are not necessarily representative of 'fair' when compared across camera brands.

Once you say, as a tester, I am not going to include any DR below x value you are making a subective assessment of objective measurements.


----------



## canonographer (Feb 10, 2016)

Nininini said:


> I love complaints about dynamic range.
> 
> 1. No photographer can accurately explain what they mean with dynamic range.



The range (dark to light) that a camera can properly expose for. A measure of the range of brightness that can be captured in a single photo without clipping shadows or blowing out highlights. 



> 2. The term "dynamic range" like some photographers use it, means nothing like what it means in science. When a scientist says "dynamic range", they are talking about things like hyperspectral imaging, not photography.



Who cares how it's used in "science," it has a specific meaning in photography that a lot of people find useful in describing one characteristic of digital camera sensors.



> 3. I have NEVER seen an actual professional photographer complain about dynamic range, ever. I have talked to several professional photographers, you know, people actually employed as journalists and or sports photographers, I have never seen any of them say anything about dynamic range. This whining about dynamic range is a very recent thing, it's like the new things to do apparently. My mother was a professional photographer for decades, she never heard the term.



Maybe you need a larger sample size than two guys and your mother. Maybe talk to a landscape photographer from the digital age.



> 4. None of the manufacturers use the same scale to define dynamic range, it's like comparing MTF charts accross brands, it makes no sense to do it.



Again, who cares. As long as the manufacturer uses that scale consistently across their own line, it gives you a tool to compare different products from a single manufacturer.



> 5. The tests that sites like DxOMark use to test dynamic range, are things they made up themselves. There is no scientific basis for those tests. I love DPReview using DxOMark scores to trash Canon cameras, even though they don't really know what they're talking about when you read their replies to comments.



As long as DxOMark uses a consistent methodology for testing across manufacturers, they are providing an objective tool for comparing image sensors across manufacturers.



> 6. HDR photography tends to looks like S___.



Unless your camera is lacking the "dynamic range" to capture the full spectrum of your subject's brightness in a single shot without blowing out highlights or clipping shadows, you generally don't need HDR photography.



> 7. Canon should just change their dynamic range scale so it doubles, and it would instantly bring over all the Nikon and Sony gearheads who are more worried about pointless specs than photography.



Generally, dynamic range is a measure of how many stops of light can be captured between clipping shadows and blowing out highlights, so your statement doesn't make any sense.



> Here is one of those "pros" whining about dynamic range. He's claiming his rock is too dark because his camera's dynamic range wasn't high enough.
> 
> Maybe............just maybe...............it's because he didn't expose properly.
> 
> He then goes on saying eyes have more dynamic range, and they would see the rock differently. Yes eyes see the rock differently, because they don't expose just once, we constantly change our pupil, and we can have different exposures in different areas, because we can activate and deactivate certain cells, it has didly squat to do with dynamic range.



I didn't watch the video, but my guess is that the photographer exposed for the sky, leaving the rock darker than he would like in his final image. If his camera has enough "dynamic range," he will be able to boost the shadows in post processing without losing any of the details that he was able to see when he was there in person.

Boosting the shadows with software like LightRoom will allow him to create a more pleasant final product that more accurately represents what he saw with his own eyes. If, on the other hand, his camera doesn't have enough dynamic range, he won't be able to boost the shadows to show the details of the rock without showing a lot of unpleasant image noise.


----------



## YellowJersey (Feb 10, 2016)

Why are we even talking about DR in a thread about a lens? 

Look, I'd like more DR out of Canon's sensors as much as the next guy. But why must every single thread turn into a DR war? Especially a lens thread where DR isn't all that relevant? There are plenty of other threads about sensors and bodies where talking about DR makes far more sense.


----------



## mclaren777 (Feb 11, 2016)

shawnc said:


> Any thoughts on what this release might do to the price of the 16-35 f/4 IS? I'm about to buy, but if a $100+ price drop might be coming soon, I can wait.



$790 is already a fantastic price for this lens.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-16-35mm-f4l-is-usm-refurbished


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 15, 2016)

YellowJersey said:


> Why are we even talking about DR in a thread about a lens?



Because it was suggested that canon should stop developing series II (and rumored III) lenses and instead put that money into sensor R&D to increase an alleged fatal deficiency in dynamic range.

As a consumer, I'd rather they prioritize resources for those items which last potentially decades (like lenses) rather than several years. I'd probably like 50% (at least) going to lenses, with the remaining 50% (at most) split among sensors, processors, flash systems, shutters, cost reduction, etc. Granted, I am not a strategy officer.


----------

