# POLL: 16-35mm f/2.8L III - filter size vs sharpness (hypothetical)



## Ruined (May 23, 2014)

Hi all,
Some are excited about the corner sharpness of the upcoming 16-35mm f/4L IS.

Just curious, if Canon were hypothetically able to improve corner sharpness on the 16-35 II f/2.8L by 25%, would you be willing to go for a bigger lens? If you recall, the 16-35 II increased filter size/lens diameter from 77mm to 82mm from the 16-35 I in exchange for improved corner sharpness. Is the 82mm filter size/lens diameter already too large or not? Of course, it is likely with increased lens diameter weight will increase as well. Thanks!


----------



## Random Orbits (May 23, 2014)

I'd hope that Caon would be able to improve corner sharpness by signficantly more than 25%. 25% of not a lot is still not a lot.

Zeiss' 21mm takes 82mm filters and Zeiss' 15mm takes 95mm filters. Is there a standard size between 82 and 95? 95mm filters, CPs are expensive.


----------



## Ruined (May 23, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> I'd hope that Caon would be able to improve corner sharpness by signficantly more than 25%. 25% of not a lot is still not a lot.
> 
> Zeiss' 21mm takes 82mm filters and Zeiss' 15mm takes 95mm filters. Is there a standard size between 82 and 95? 95mm filters, CPs are expensive.



I know that there is 82mm, 86mm, and 95mm at the minimum.

And, I am just going by the difference between 16-35 I and 16-35 II; I don't believe the difference was much more than 25% was it? Trying to be realistic rather than over optimistic


----------



## Bennymiata (May 24, 2014)

I love my 16-35 II.
I think it's pretty good already.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 24, 2014)

Ruined said:


> know that there is 82mm, 86mm, and 95mm at the minimum.
> 
> And, I am just going by the difference between 16-35 I and 16-35 II; I don't believe the difference was much more than 25% was it? Trying to be realistic rather than over optimistic



I did not know about 86mm filters, but I'm guessing it might be closer to 95mm of the zeiss.

I'm hoping that the 16-35 f/2.8 III would be at least as good as the 16-35 f/4 IS, which trounces the 16-35 f/2.8 II. See comparison about halfway down at link below.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx


----------



## Ruined (May 24, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > know that there is 82mm, 86mm, and 95mm at the minimum.
> ...



The 16-35mm F/4 IS may be sharper, but without doing f/2.8 it simply is incapable of 'trouncing' the 16-35 II f/2.8. For my purposes, f/4 is a non-starter as it is too slow, period - it would not work in low light situations as I need to keep shutter around 1/100-1/125 to avoid motion blur, and it would result in unwanted extra DOF when at 35mm focal length.

But, the catch is, a lens that is both as sharp as the f/4 IS and also f/2.8 may be a monster lens (like the Zeiss 15 or Nikon 14-24) that would be too big for some people.

In the end, as with all things photography, I am guessing we may end up with the following compromise to pick from depending on needs:
16-35 super sharp, but f/4
16-35 not as sharp in corners, but f/2.8
16-35/11-24/14-24 super sharp and f/2.8, but larger in size/weight

Each of the three has a use for different people - I am just wondering where people stand on the diameter issue. I welcome an addition to the lineup that is much larger (i.e. 95mm, bulbous, etc) - I just don't want that to be the only f/2.8 option personally.

Anyways, that is the point of this poll, I am curious to see what people's size limits are with this lens.


----------



## Ruined (May 24, 2014)

Bennymiata said:


> I love my 16-35 II.
> I think it's pretty good already.



I actually do also, for events I think it is pretty much unbeatable by any other zoom in its pricerange. The 17-35 Nikon equivalent is less sharp and has a lot more CA, and the 14-24 is too large, no protective filter for rough events, and missing vital 35mm that makes 16-35 so useful.

But, it is still interesting to see what the forum's thoughts on size is.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 24, 2014)

Flawed assumption that filter size has any direct correlation to image sharpness.


----------



## kaihp (May 24, 2014)

My guess is that Canon will retain the 82mm filter size, and upgrade the next 70-200/2.8L to 82mm as well.
In this way, the f72.8L "holy trinity" series (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all use 82mm filters, whereas the f/4L mid-range series uses 77mm filters.


----------



## rs (May 24, 2014)

kaihp said:


> My guess is that Canon will retain the 82mm filter size, and upgrade the next 70-200/2.8L to 82mm as well.
> In this way, the f72.8L "holy trinity" series (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all use 82mm filters, whereas the f/4L mid-range series uses 77mm filters.


Both the 70-200/4 lenses have 67mm filter threads


----------



## Khalai (May 24, 2014)

rs said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > My guess is that Canon will retain the 82mm filter size, and upgrade the next 70-200/2.8L to 82mm as well.
> ...


And I cannot see why would Canon want to upgrade its 70-200/2.8 II anytime soon. That lens is a gem (awesome, heavy and pricey  ).


----------



## Random Orbits (May 24, 2014)

Ruined said:


> The 16-35mm F/4 IS may be sharper, but without doing f/2.8 it simply is incapable of 'trouncing' the 16-35 II f/2.8. For my purposes, f/4 is a non-starter as it is too slow, period - it would not work in low light situations as I need to keep shutter around 1/100-1/125 to avoid motion blur, and it would result in unwanted extra DOF when at 35mm focal length.
> 
> But, the catch is, a lens that is both as sharp as the f/4 IS and also f/2.8 may be a monster lens (like the Zeiss 15 or Nikon 14-24) that would be too big for some people.
> ...


Based on the MTFs, I would expect the f/4 to be better than the 16-35 III at all equivalent apertures, which is trouncing. The fact that it is not f/2.8 means that it's not a direct replacement for the 16-35 III, so yes, the III has a larger aperture, but it pretty much loses everywhere else...

I would expect the 16-35 III to be as good as the 16-35 f/4 IS, and Canon will let the weight, filter diameter fall where it may be. The 16-35 II is at least as good as the 17-40 (same generation), the 24-70 II as least as good as the 24-70 f/4, etc. Those who don't want a larger, heavier lens can opt for the 16-35 II or something else.


----------



## kaihp (May 24, 2014)

rs said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > My guess is that Canon will retain the 82mm filter size, and upgrade the next 70-200/2.8L to 82mm as well.
> ...



Really?  That just goes to show how long time has passed since I sold my f/4L and moved to the f/2.8L 



Khalai said:


> And I cannot see why would Canon want to upgrade its 70-200/2.8 II anytime soon. That lens is a gem (awesome, heavy and pricey  ).



I'm not suggesting that it isn't a gem, nor that it will be updated soon. But it might fit, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 24, 2014)

82mm filter size is becoming more and more common. Also if you look at the current 16-35mm f/2.8, there is still room to increase the front element size and expand the image circle without increasing the filter size.


----------



## traingineer (May 24, 2014)

kaihp said:


> My guess is that Canon will retain the 82mm filter size, and upgrade the next 70-200/2.8L to 82mm as well.
> In this way, the f72.8L "holy trinity" series (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) all use 82mm filters, whereas the f/4L mid-range series uses 77mm filters.



F72.8?  But anyway, it's going to take a long time to wait for a new 70-200 F2.8


----------



## dgatwood (May 24, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> Flawed assumption that filter size has any direct correlation to image sharpness.



It might under some circumstances if bumping up a lens size gets them the ability to build an f/2.8 with IS without introducing vignetting.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 24, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Flawed assumption that filter size has any direct correlation to image sharpness.
> ...


 


Its the lens design that determines sharpness. The size of the filter does not improve or reduce sharpness, just vignetting. The quality of a filter determines how much the image is degraded.


----------



## dgatwood (May 24, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



My point was that image stabilization can make the difference between a crisp shot and a soft shot caused by smearing, and I would expect the front lens to be larger when you add IS, because it has to be able to produce an image without dark edges whenever the IS system is pointing the internal parts of the lens in a different direction. And if the front glass is larger, the filter size has to be proportionally larger to avoid vignetting. So if moving up by one filter size enables them to add IS to the lens, then in low light when handheld, crispness could potentially depend, in a manner of speaking, on the filter size.


----------



## timcz (May 24, 2014)

I'd be suprised if a 16-35 2.8 v3 will come at all. As much as i'd love one to, I suspect the next UWA we will see will be something similar to Nikons 14-24 with a fairly non-filterable bulbous element. 

I will likely be selling my v2 in favour of the new f4. I dont need the IS at all, but really want the sharper corners. I hardly ever shoot at 2.8, aside from when I do some astro type stuff, but I can likely bump up the iso an extra stop to cover that.


----------



## Ruined (May 25, 2014)

timcz said:


> I'd be suprised if a 16-35 2.8 v3 will come at all. As much as i'd love one to, I suspect the next UWA we will see will be something similar to Nikons 14-24 with a fairly non-filterable bulbous element.



I would think this is most likely, as I'm sure users of the 14-24 may be unhappy if the new lens only goes to 16mm. And, given the size difference between the 14-24 and 16-35, they are aimed at different markets.

Since the 14-24 range is a gap for Canon, I would assume they would fill that first and wait at least a few years before revisiting the 16-35 II to avoid one sabotaging the sales of the other.


----------

