# New EF f/2.8 Wide Angle Zoom in the Works [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 18, 2015)

```
This is the second time in the last month or so that we’ve been told that a new wide angle f/2.8 zoom was in the works. The obvious lens for replacement would be for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II. which was released in 2007. Fast wide angle zooms are still required by a lot of event photographers as well as people that want to use something lighter, cheaper and easier to use than the EF 11-24 f/4L.</p>
<p>I think it’s possible that the focal length range changes, even if only slightly.</p>
<p>Such an update will not come before the release of Canon’s next L prime, which most people expect to be the EF 35mm f/1.4L II.</p>
```


----------



## tron (May 18, 2015)

If it has the quality of 16-35 f/4 L IS it will be a very desirable lens...


----------



## PureClassA (May 18, 2015)

With the crazy success of the 16-35 f4, I really wonder how many buyers would be out there for the same wide lens with one extra stop and likely no IS. Landscapers aren't shooting wide open anyway, so the occasions one would really need that extra stop would be pretty rare. Had the f4 not been released, then this would make more sense, considering the lackluster edge performance of the current model, but a lot of those owners have already sold it and moved to the f4. I'm taking this one with a bottle of salt.


----------



## tron (May 18, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> With the crazy success of the 16-35 f4, I really wonder *how many buyers would be out there for the same wide lens with one extra stop and likely no IS*. Landscapers aren't shooting wide open anyway, so the occasions one would really need that extra stop would be pretty rare. Had the f4 not been released, then this would make more sense, considering the lackluster edge performance of the current model, but a lot of those owners have already sold it and moved to the f4. I'm taking this one with a bottle of salt.


Event photographers and Landscape Astrophotographers. I am intersested in Landscape Astophotograpy. Usually, I use my 14 2.8 L II but the bulbous front element creates problems with side lighting. A 16-35 with flat front element and a hood would help...


----------



## Memdroid (May 18, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> With the crazy success of the 16-35 f4, I really wonder how many buyers would be out there for the same wide lens with one extra stop and likely no IS. Landscapers aren't shooting wide open anyway, so the occasions one would really need that extra stop would be pretty rare. Had the f4 not been released, then this would make more sense, considering the lackluster edge performance of the current model, but a lot of those owners have already sold it and moved to the f4. I'm taking this one with a bottle of salt.



I am in the market for a direct 16-35 2.8 II replacement for the low light event work. This is the weakest lens I have in my bag but it gets a fair amount of use. I tried the F4 IS version via CPS loan, while the lens renders beautifully and is tack sharp but the extra stop in low light is definitely needed.


----------



## steliosk (May 18, 2015)

A replacement of the 16-35 2.8 II was needed.
I'll buy one ASAP to make a great pair with my 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II

Although the 16-35 f/4 is perfect for landscape work, but for me being both landscape and wedding photographer that f/4 is killing me in weddings, and the new Tamron 15-30 doesn't take descend filters for landscape


----------



## IglooEater (May 18, 2015)

I'd get it, but they'd better hurry- the Tamron 15-30 is calling out to me..


----------



## iron-t (May 18, 2015)

This lens does seem to need an update. I had a 16-35mm f/2,8L II and sold it. Its resolution anywhere but dead center was pretty awful. I used it at the longer end most of the time and always regretted not using my Tamron 24-70mm which had much, much better resolution at 24-35mm all the way from wide open to f/11. Now they are both gone and I'm using a Samyang 14mm and Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II with no regrets.

There are people that need this type of lens, without question. It's probably not an enormous market since most photogs will be fine with the f/4 IS and those needing an ultra-ultra wide can go for the 11-24, but it's definitely there.


----------



## PureClassA (May 18, 2015)

Guess I never had occasion to use such a wide on events. 24-70 gets me there. And for Astro, I would thik even 2.8 isn't fast enough. See a lot of folks using 24mm primes (or wider) at 1.4 or 2. I don't really shoot either of these that often so I don't know.


----------



## RGF (May 18, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> I think it’s possible that the focal length range changes, even if only slightly.</p>



Wonder if the focal length change will be towards the wide end. I would like to see 14-30/36 F2.8 that matches the IQ of the 16-35 F4 and the 11-24 F4.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 18, 2015)

I hope Canon keeps the same number of aperture blades which the current model has...it produces the best sun stars ever.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (May 18, 2015)

RGF said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I think it’s possible that the focal length range changes, even if only slightly.</p>
> ...



I think they'd limit it to 15-35/40, if nothing else, just to guard their 14mm prime.


----------



## rowlandw (May 18, 2015)

Gee, do you think they'd try a faster aperture like f/2 like Sigma has for their f/1.8 18-35 zoom? 
This would differentiate Canon from the awesome Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 (which I own).


----------



## luckydude (May 19, 2015)

I wonder if this is Canon finally trying to compete with the one Nikon lens I'd actually like to own - the 14-24 f2.8
It's pretty sweet for astro stuff:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/nightsky/[email protected]


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 19, 2015)

rowlandw said:


> Gee, do you think they'd try a faster aperture like f/2 like Sigma has for their f/1.8 18-35 zoom?
> This would differentiate Canon from the awesome Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 (which I own).



Isn't the Sigma really only for use on crop? I doubt Canon will match it for FF.


----------



## adventureous (May 19, 2015)

My 16-35 F2.8II get's used all the time for low light events, and real estate interiors. It is the lens on my camera 90% of the time. The chromatic aberration - purple fringing- drives me crazy and since this is the second go around for this lens, I would hate to see the first edition. It does get me shots that people love, and for low light the 2.8 is hard to beat. Fix the edge resolution-sharpness and color fringing and I'm in.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 19, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> With the crazy success of the 16-35 f4, I really wonder how many buyers would be out there for the same wide lens with one extra stop and likely no IS. Landscapers aren't shooting wide open anyway, so the occasions one would really need that extra stop would be pretty rare. Had the f4 not been released, then this would make more sense, considering the lackluster edge performance of the current model, but a lot of those owners have already sold it and moved to the f4. I'm taking this one with a bottle of salt.


+1, in fact I was one of the people that sold the 16-35/2.8L II and bought the newest 16-35/4L IS and no regrets at all. I personally shoot rarely wide open and the IS comes very handy.
People who may go for the new 16-35/2.8L III are the same that uses the current now, people who wants to stop action and need higher shutter speeds.


----------



## tron (May 19, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Guess I never had occasion to use such a wide on events. 24-70 gets me there. And for Astro, I would thik even 2.8 isn't fast enough. See a lot of folks using 24mm primes (or wider) at 1.4 or 2. I don't really shoot either of these that often so I don't know.


24 is not 16! Also it has to be coma free so Canon 24 1.4 is excluded.


----------



## Ladislav (May 19, 2015)

I hope they are also working on 24-70 L 2.8 IS ... Several times I had temptation to replace the Tamron with 24-70 L 4.0 IS but I don't want to lose the extra stop and I don't want to lose IS by going for 24-70 L 2.8 II. If I have to pay a fortune I want it all. Tamron has advantage in this even I'm not so much impressed with its focus consistency. Compared to what my 100L or 70-300L can do in terms of sharpness and AF speed and consistency, I consider Tamron very often below the bar.


----------



## tron (May 19, 2015)

I got the new Canon 24-70 2.8 II and I did not regret it. It focuses accurately and it is very sharp. I prefer it over Tamron IS but I can understand someone who wants everything in one lens. I guess we will have to wait alot for such a Canon lens.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 20, 2015)

tron said:


> If it has the quality of 16-35 f/4 L IS it will be a very desirable lens...



The 16-35 f2.8 came first, then the 17-40 f4 L came some time later. The latter was a far better lens optically until Canon updated the 16-35 with the mkII and brought it to the same level as the f4 version. Many of us need the f2.8 option and f4 is just too slow. 
So the new 16-35 f4 LIS is the newest design and leaves the old 16-35IIL wanting. So when Canon releases the new f2.8 version...it'll bring the f2.8 option upto the f4's capability....again.


----------



## H. Jones (May 20, 2015)

I think I would have been more in the market for a new 16-35mm F/2.8 if it wasn't for the fact they're releasing a new 35mm F/1.4. 

I currently have the 16-35mm F/4 IS and absolutely love it, it makes absolutely beautiful corner-to-corner images, and the image stabilizer is absolutely fantastic. If I want a fast wide angle to stop action without a flash, it's more likely that I'd opt for the faster 35mm f/1.4. F/4 16mm is acceptable for use with a flash, especially with a orb/omnibounce diffuser, and if it comes down to it, my 16mm shots during events/weddings are so rare that I'd rather just use higher ISO on those shots if flash isn't acceptable. 

35mm on the otherhand is a very useful length for my events/weddings and I would love to have f/1.4 to stop action without a flash. 

It'd take a lot more than f/2.8 to make me get rid of my 16-35mm F/4 IS, so I'd be curious to see what they release, but I'm much more interested in a 35mm f/1.4 to add to the abilities of my 16-35mm F/4 IS rather than replace it with a f/2.8.


----------



## YellowJersey (May 21, 2015)

I realise that nobody knows the answer to the question I'm about to ask and that lens rumours are always a lot harder to pin down, so this is hugely speculative: 

If this lens were to materialise, any thoughts on when (approximately) it might come out?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 21, 2015)

YellowJersey said:


> I realise that nobody knows the answer to the question I'm about to ask and that lens rumours are always a lot harder to pin down, so this is hugely speculative:
> 
> If this lens were to materialise, any thoughts on when (approximately) it might come out?



Firstly the optical formula has to be worked out. Then the prototypes...then that has to be turned into a production run. The production run has to be placed between other production runs for all the other lenses...and usually they are made in batches between runs / batches of other lenses in the queue. 
If there's a delay with a lens batch further up queue then everything delays too. 
It will be available when it's available.


----------



## DRR (May 22, 2015)

I'm often a generation behind on most of my gear, so I can't wait for the III to come out so I can upgrade my 16-35 I to a 16-35II.

Related: Come on, 5D Mark IV!


----------



## mangobutter (May 22, 2015)

rowlandw said:


> Gee, do you think they'd try a faster aperture like f/2 like Sigma has for their f/1.8 18-35 zoom?
> This would differentiate Canon from the awesome Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 (which I own).



Yeah. No. That's not how that works. The f/1.8 Sigma zoom is equivalent to a f/2.8 or f/2.9 on a crop body. It's designed to mimic the 24-70 2.8 formula for crop bodies. A full frame (proper lens) 2.0 zoom is not practical and would be bigger than your head and as expensive as a brand new Lexus.


----------



## sleepnever (May 22, 2015)

luckydude said:


> I wonder if this is Canon finally trying to compete with the one Nikon lens I'd actually like to own - the 14-24 f2.8
> It's pretty sweet for astro stuff:
> 
> http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/nightsky/[email protected]



Really awesome shot.


----------



## NancyP (May 22, 2015)

Oh, if this has the corner to corner sharpness of the f/4 and has minimal coma, this would be THE astro lens. IS is nice, but for landscape and obviously for astro, I use a tripod. Currently I cover this with three very nice but also heavy lenses: 14mm f/2.8 Samyang, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, 35mm f/1.4 Sigma Art.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 22, 2015)

tron said:


> If it has the quality of 16-35 f/4 L IS it will be a very desirable lens...


+1, I love my 16-35mm f4L IS however, if the new 16-35/2.8L has the same quality it would be interesting


----------



## Matthew Saville (May 22, 2015)

1.) The pipe dreams of a full-frame 18-35mm f/1.8 are just that- pipe dreams. Unless someone can point me to a patent filed by Sigma, or any other, for a full-frame version of the existing APS-C lens, the whole thing is just conjecture and wishful thinking.

2.) While there are certainly plenty of (a majority of?) more "traditional" landscape photographers out there who shoot everything at f/11, astro-landscape photography is rapidly becoming more popular. In this realm, every last f-stop and ISO you can squeeze out of your camera matters, because every second longer you expose, the earth rotates and turns your beautiful milky way photos into annoying little lines.

3.) On that note, no you can not just "expose longer" as an astrophotographer. At 35mm, even an exposure of 15 sec will begin to render stars as small lines. At 24mm, an exposure of ~20 sec will do the same, and at 16mm, you can just barely accept 30 sec. So unless you're going to make every single night landscape photo you take a star trail, you do indeed crave f/2.8 instead of f/4. Heck, due to the above limitations, even f/2.8 is only acceptable at 17mm and wider. By 20mm, I'd really rather have f/2 at my disposal, and by 24-35mm, f/1.4 is almost mission-critical.

4.) ...Which brings me full circle: Although all rumors up to this point have been baseless, I would certainly love to see an ultrawide full-frame zoom that is faster than f/2.8. It doesn't need to be 16-35mm either, I'd settle for a 17-24mm f/2, if it could pull off filter threads instead of a bulbous front element. And considering the tiny weight and size of the Tokina 11-16 2.8, (equivalent to ~17-24mm) ...I'd say that a full-frame 17-24 f/2 is possible in less size / weight than the Nikon 14-24 at least, even if they have to forego front filters...

But, that's just a dream. The masses want what the masses want, and that'll be good enough for me.


----------



## ahsanford (May 22, 2015)

This rumor doesn't surprise me, but I shake my head at why it's such a priority.

A 16-35 F/2.8L III is aimed at sports/events and possibly some landscape astro. But potential additional users of this lens -- namely landscapers and architectural interiors folks -- are likely out of the market as they just got their 16-35 F/4L IS and 11-24 F/4L lenses, respectively. So I have to question the scale of 'unmet need' at play here. 

Surely the 35L II and 50 f/nooneknows IS USM have a far bigger pent-up demand than replacing a decent L lens that's only 8 years old.

- A


----------



## meywd (May 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > And for Astro, I would thik even 2.8 isn't fast enough. See a lot of folks using 24mm primes (or wider) at 1.4 or 2. I don't really shoot either of these that often so I don't know.
> ...



while f/1.4 or f/2 would be great, there are no FF lenses faster than f/2.8 on 16mm, also the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 12800 which means less noise, you can shoot panos with a 24mm or a 35mm, but its not the same.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (May 23, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> This rumor doesn't surprise me, but I shake my head at why it's such a priority.
> 
> A 16-35 F/2.8L III is aimed at sports/events and possibly some landscape astro. But potential additional users of this lens -- namely landscapers and architectural interiors folks -- are likely out of the market as they just got their 16-35 F/4L IS and 11-24 F/4L lenses, respectively. So I have to question the scale of 'unmet need' at play here.
> 
> ...


The 16-35 F4 IS is only 20 grams lighter than the current f2.8 version. IS isn't very critical for landscapes, but f2.8 can be far more useful. If the new f2.8 has less vignetting and less coma while also sharper in the corners, it could be a huge hit for all types of photographers. If you watch any major sporting event like American football, the 16-35 f2.8 II is all over the place when they are doing wide shots. Both journalists and sports shooters love it for their wide angle work, as the lens is fast and has great focus consistency. A new version that is sharper in the corners wide open would be gobbled up in masses by those shooters. IS can't make up for f2.8 when getting the types of shots they take. 

BTW, the 11-24 is a not a great landscape lens if one considers the weight to usefulness ratio.


----------



## JoseB (May 23, 2015)

The front element is cute!!


----------



## Busted Knuckles (May 23, 2015)

I see this as needed. I rented at 16-35 2.8 II and decided to go to the f4 and am happy. If I were an event photo guy, a sharp 2.8 is a must. Weddings, photo journ, bands, etc, etc. I see plenty of use for this.

I am not sure it is for me. I am over invested in this activity already.


----------



## ahsanford (May 23, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> The 16-35 F4 IS is only 20 grams lighter than the current f2.8 version. IS isn't very critical for landscapes, but f2.8 can be far more useful. If the new f2.8 has less vignetting and less coma while also sharper in the corners, it could be a huge hit for all types of photographers. If you watch any major sporting event like American football, the 16-35 f2.8 II is all over the place when they are doing wide shots. Both journalists and sports shooters love it for their wide angle work, as the lens is fast and has great focus consistency. A new version that is sharper in the corners wide open would be gobbled up in masses by those shooters. IS can't make up for f2.8 when getting the types of shots they take.
> 
> BTW, the 11-24 is a not a great landscape lens if one considers the weight to usefulness ratio.



Please don't mistake me, I'm not remotely arguing against the value of a 16-35 f/2.8 lens.

All the time, I see the 16-35 f/2.8L II at sporting events for post-game rushes on to the field / court as the coach or star player gets mobbed. It's an absolute staple lens for (American) football and basketball for that very reason. That single photographic need is such a staple for sports photographers that a fast UWA zoom will always be offered.

I just think that very few folks _need_ f/2.8 in an UWA zoom, and as a result, the 16-35 f/4L IS probably got that business already. So I see a 16-35 F/2.8L III principally going to sports and event shooters.

- A


----------



## PhotographyFirst (May 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35 F4 IS is only 20 grams lighter than the current f2.8 version. IS isn't very critical for landscapes, b
> ...



???


----------



## guidoz (May 24, 2015)

Well, I agree that 16-35 2.8 might be a bit specific for event/sport/reportage... but... if they'll make a version that is even just slightly less sharp than the 4 IS (even only when stopped down) from corner to corner, it would be a sort of all-around wide zoom...good for events/sport but also for landscapes (when stopped down).. and if coma is good even some astro/night landscapes. 

I would definitely prefer such a lens to a more landscape specific 4 IS... couldn't care less about IS when doing landscape, and I prefer wide aperture over IS for most of other uses. I would definitely get it, even if more pricey than the 4 IS... 

Just for the record: I'm a 16-35 2.8 II owner... I've been temped to replace it with 16-35 4 IS + samyang 14 2.8.. but I'm refraining because well.. I started using the Sigma 35A as a sharper landscape lens (although flare resistance isn't great at all) when I don't need UW focals... and I was just hoping to hear some rumors like this. 

Let's just hope it won't take forever to have it in shops...


----------



## tron (May 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Matthew Saville said:
> 
> 
> > 2.) While there are certainly plenty of (a majority of?) more "traditional" landscape photographers out there who shoot everything at f/11, astro-landscape photography is rapidly becoming more popular. In this realm, every last f-stop and ISO you can squeeze out of your camera matters, because every second longer you expose, the earth rotates and turns your beautiful milky way photos into annoying little lines.
> ...


The keyword here is "imagine"....


----------



## YuengLinger (May 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



T-R-I-P-O-D


----------



## YuengLinger (May 24, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35 F4 IS is only 20 grams lighter than the current f2.8 version. IS isn't very critical for landscapes, but f2.8 can be far more useful. If the new f2.8 has less vignetting and less coma while also sharper in the corners, it could be a huge hit for all types of photographers. If you watch any major sporting event like American football, the 16-35 f2.8 II is all over the place when they are doing wide shots. Both journalists and sports shooters love it for their wide angle work, as the lens is fast and has great focus consistency. A new version that is sharper in the corners wide open would be gobbled up in masses by those shooters. IS can't make up for f2.8 when getting the types of shots they take.
> ...



Canon would have been out of the SLR business decades ago if only people who needed them bought them.


----------



## guidoz (May 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> When you're shooting at f/11 with ISO 100, the IS lets you get shots at 1/10 hand held that you would not otherwise get.
> 
> Some people get even longer exposures with IS that they would otherwise have no hope of getting.



What you're saying doesn't make sense at all. The IS allows you to expose 3-4 stops "longer"... the actual shutter time-iso-aperture values can be very different from the ones you mention, depending on the available light.

Anyway, if you shoot moving subject at 1/10 you'll get motion blur... and if you shot landscapes, well... why expose 1/10 hand-held when you can expose a couple of minutes on a tripod?


----------



## Antono Refa (May 25, 2015)

The zoom ratio is 2.06, which means either 1mm on the wide side, or 2mm on the long side.


----------



## super_newbie_pro (Jun 5, 2015)

Please dont forget a new 20mm f2.8 USM *IS*


----------



## gobucks (Jun 5, 2015)

One thing nobody has mentioned is price. The current 2.8 II, which is clearly worse than the f4 IS in every way but max aperture, still carries a $500 premium. I'd imagine a brand new 2.8 with IQ equal to the F4 would be priced around $2k, maybe more (see canons pricing when they finally released the killer 24-70 2.8 II). A further problem is that unlike the 24-70, where the 2.8 II blows away the 24-105 and overpriced 24-70 F4 IS, at a new 16-35 III would be competing with a competitively priced, excellent IQ F4 IS option in the ultrawide segment, where f2.8 is less important. So basically the only market is for astro people and event photographers who need wide angle without flash. Thus, I think the 16-35 III would be a very niche lens, and low volume would probably make it more expensive to produce.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2015)

gobucks said:


> One thing nobody has mentioned is price. The current 2.8 II, which is clearly worse than the f4 IS in every way but max aperture, still carries a $500 premium. I'd imagine a brand new 2.8 with IQ equal to the F4 would be priced around $2k, maybe more (see canons pricing when they finally released the killer 24-70 2.8 II). A further problem is that unlike the 24-70, where the 2.8 II blows away the 24-105 and overpriced 24-70 F4 IS, at a new 16-35 III would be competing with a competitively priced, excellent IQ F4 IS option in the ultrawide segment, where f2.8 is less important. So basically the only market is for astro people and event photographers who need wide angle without flash. Thus, I think the 16-35 III would be a very niche lens, and low volume would probably make it more expensive to produce.



All fair points.

I think there are a large chunk of sports and events shooters wouldn't be caught dead with an f/4 lens unless they were in big white territory. Despite the high ISO gains sensors have made over the years, some folks are fixated on letting in the most light, and that's that -- that's how they are wired. To those folks, the only competition for the 16-35 F/2.8L III is the _16-35 F/2.8L II_ because that's what they use now.

But I have to mention that the 24-70 F/4L IS is a spectacularly underrated lens. Currently at $800 (after rebate), you get a lens that is:


Compact and light -- sneaks under some stadium's 6" lens limits, it's very light for hiking
Sharper than the 24-105L
Offers IS
Has an unprecedented 0.7x max mag for a non macro lens. That feature is phenomenal for non-dedicated / walkaround macro work.
Loaded full of L lens goodness -- proper quick USM, weather sealing, hood, etc.

That lens is a great value, not a poor one. I peg it right up there with the 16-35 F/4L IS as relative bargain compared to Canon's other insanely priced items.

- A


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 5, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> T-R-I-P-O-D



So this saves me the cost of a tripod and the hassle of lugging the damn thing around? Fantastic! You seem to be making a great case for IS.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > T-R-I-P-O-D
> ...


Tripod vs. IS is a case study of one sensibility trying to crush the other. Proponents of each group will never see eye to eye.

I rank such a debate up there with using UV/clear filters vs. shooting with naked lenses. It's a philosophical position that borders on religious belief, and no degree of discourse will change opinions on either side. 

I don't want to stifle the discussion, but please recognize neither of you are going to change each other's minds. I'd rather be respectful and concede those with the patience and deliberate shooting technique, a tripod is a great call. For them.

But for me, I overwhelmingly shoot handheld with available light and only use the tripod for dedicated landscape work (less than 5% of what I shoot). Therefore -- for my needs -- IS is gold at any focal length as it is a stop-for-stop 'ISO reducer' when shooting static scenes, i.e. if you are shooting a static scene and the lens packs 3 stops of IS, then I'll net the same shot at ISO 800 that a non-IS lens will require ISO 6400 to capture. That is worth paying extra for, plain and simple.

- A


----------



## gobucks (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> All fair points.
> 
> I think there are a large chunk of sports and events shooters wouldn't be caught dead with an f/4 lens unless they were in big white territory. Despite the high ISO gains sensors have made over the years, some folks are fixated on letting in the most light, and that's that -- that's how they are wired. To those folks, the only competition for the 16-35 F/2.8L III is the _16-35 F/2.8L II_ because that's what they use now.
> 
> ...



I hadn't realized how much the 24-70 F4 IS has dropped in price since launch (I think it launched at a staggering $1500). $799 is much more reasonable, and I have no doubt it's a bit underrated, but I think it has a problem with market positioning. It's in the unenviable position of being a shorter-focal length but optically superior version of a very popular kit lens. With the 24-105 being quite sharp (although dim at T/5.1) and only $400 with a new body, it's a tough sell to get a new full framer to go the more expensive route to buy the shorter range 24-70. And I doubt many pros would consider an F4 normal zoom for their main lens.

As for the comparison to the 24-70 2.8 II, I think F2.8 is more of a selling point at the 24-70 (and to some extent 70-200) focal ranges than at 16-35. 24-70 is the walk-around range, and 2.8 is invaluable for capturing those unscripted moments, particularly at night. 16-35 is more often geared towards landscapes, architecture, and things like that. Obviously some people will use a 16-35 for astro and wide wedding shots or whatever, but I think if you asked most people whether they'd prefer an F4 ultrawide and a F2.8 normal zoom, or an F2.8 ultrawide and F4 normal zoom, 95% would choose the former. 

With all that, I'm having a hard time figuring out how Canon would make enough separation from the 16-35 F4 IS to justify the sticker price they'd probably want for the 16-35 F2.8 III. I guess something akin to the Nikon 14-24 2.8 might do the trick, although to some extent that lens benefits from Nikon's own 16-35 VR being a dog - Canon's F4 IS nearly matches the Nikon 14-24 in sharpness.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Tripod vs. IS is a case study of one sensibility trying to crush the other. Proponents of each group will never see eye to eye.
> 
> I rank such a debate up there with using UV/clear filters vs. shooting with naked lenses. It's a philosophical position that borders on religious belief, and no degree of discourse will change opinions on either side.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. And I very much agree - all of my shooting right now (obviously) is hand-held. Most of it isn't even realistic to do with a tripod - neighborhood walks, trail runs, and (of course) my cat). Probably the F1 race later this year. No way I'm using a tripod for any of that, so the insistence that it's the way to go from the other camp rankles.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 5, 2015)

gobucks said:


> I hadn't realized how much the 24-70 F4 IS has dropped in price since launch (I think it launched at a staggering $1500). $799 is much more reasonable, and I have no doubt it's a bit underrated, but I think it has a problem with market positioning. It's in the unenviable position of being a shorter-focal length but optically superior version of a very popular kit lens. With the 24-105 being quite sharp (although dim at T/5.1) and only $400 with a new body, it's a tough sell to get a new full framer to go the more expensive route to buy the shorter range 24-70. And I doubt many pros would consider an F4 normal zoom for their main lens.



Yeah. I think Canon has a problem with offering three(!) FF kit lenses, since the 24-105L, 24-105 STM, and 24-70/4L are all kit lenses. None is great, all have their good and bad sides... and it makes for too many SKUs and too many different prices. It would have been glorious if the STM were weather-sealed and constant f/4. It would have been glorious if the 24-70/4L had been cheaper than the 24-105L. As it is, I ordered my 5D3 with a 24-105L because yes, it's the best of the options for the price. Even if it's dim.

They should have made a FF kit lens on par with the 18-135 STM, or at least the 18-55 STM, and just put it everywhere instead of three choices to confuse the first-time FF shopper.

Yes, this was off-topic, but having just plunked down the cash, I wanted to vent a little when it came up!


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 6, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



I suggested use of a tripod when shutter speed was down to 1/10th of a second with a relatively high ISO.

A tripod is a critical tool in photography and should be used when needed. Some photographers simply don't have the experience, knowledge, or sense to decide when a tripod is necessary.

No comparison to using or not using a UV filter. Off target analogy.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 6, 2015)

And some people like long distance hikers, mountaineers etc just don't have room to carry a tripod in their kit, or might be working in conditions where a tripod just isn't practical or possible.... why is an extra tool which can help capture a decent shot in less than favourable conditions such a bad thing?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 6, 2015)

Who has been advocating no IS?

I'd love every lens to have it, but it isn't the answer to every low-light situation, obviously. There are times when a tripod is necessary, times when a tripod is silly, and times when it is great to have it in the trunk just in case.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 9, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Who has been advocating no IS?
> 
> I'd love every lens to have it, but it isn't the answer to every low-light situation, obviously. There are times when a tripod is necessary, times when a tripod is silly, and times when it is great to have it in the trunk just in case.



There are people (I can't remember which thread) specifically calling IS "useless glass that can only degrade IQ".


----------



## tron (Jun 10, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Who has been advocating no IS?
> ...


Maybe they didn't have to use telephoto lenses.


As a *SINGLE case* however, I have one lens 300 f/4L (NON IS) which is reported better than 300 4L IS. 

As an example (since I do not have the IS version) my 300 4L with 1.4XII was better than my 100-400 (version 1) even when the 300+1.4X combination was at f/6.3 and the 100-400 at f/7.1.
All shots were with tripod and LV focusing at 10x.

At the same time there are reports that 300L IS + 1.4XII is worse than 100-400 (version 1). So ...

But as I said this was the past and a single lens model.


----------

