# New BR Lens Before the End of the Year? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 26, 2015)

```
We’re told that there is a chance Canon will announce another L lens before the end of the year featuring <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-develops-new-camera-lens-optical-element/">Canon’s new Blue Spectrum Refractive (BR) element</a>. The announcement could fall into Q1 of 2016 as well.</p>
<p>Which lens would be announced wasn’t known by the source, but they did say it was likely going to be a zoom. The only L zoom that we’ve heard that is coming “soon” is a replacement for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II. That lens is used a lot by event photographers, and with the EOS-1D X and EOS 5D Mark III set to be replaced in 2016, the timing is right.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
```


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2015)

There are two zooms that come to mind..... the 28-70F2.8 and the 70-200F2.8. These are Canon's showcase lenses, the ones that everyone wishes they had in their bag.... I would suspect them to be prime candidates for the BR treatment......


----------



## Talley (Oct 26, 2015)

Wrong.

16-35 2.8 IS


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 26, 2015)

I'd be all for a 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii

SERIOUSLY doubt Canon would throw IS into it though


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 26, 2015)

50mm and a new 85. In that order I reckon.

That BR layer will appear in EVERYTHING. Because it really works.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

The next L zoom is most likely the 16-35 F/2.8L III. Given that this lens generally shoots moving targets (sports, events, etc.) IS seems unlikely, unless Canon is courting videographers at this FL.

What I want to know is: is BR simply going to be slapped into each new L lens that is offered, or is it uniquely beneficial/implementable for wide aperture primes?

- A


----------



## Marius in Afrika (Oct 26, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> What I want to know is: is BR simply going to be slapped into each new L lens that is offered, or is it uniquely beneficial/implementable for wide aperture primes?
> 
> - A



Any links to independent believable test which show the benefits and the prove?

Regards
Marius


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

Marius in Afrika said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is: is BR simply going to be slapped into each new L lens that is offered, or is it uniquely beneficial/implementable for wide aperture primes?
> ...



The only proof we have is the new 35 f/1.4L II, which apparently is stellar. How much of that is due to the new optical design vs. the impact of the BR technology is not really known, is it?

- A


----------



## jlev23 (Oct 26, 2015)

sigma is kicking canon's ass with the 18-35 f1.8 and all the reports of the current 16-35 being soft. so im hoping they step up their game with a wide angle announcement before the red raven comes out or canon is going to loose a lot of customers, as they are already, to sigma. i personally think they should start making their zooms parafocal, this would be a huge gain for the blurred lines of photographers and videographers and would put canon again in the forefront of the lens race. if they dont, sigma will be the natural choice of everyone moving forward.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 26, 2015)

Marius in Afrika said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is: is BR simply going to be slapped into each new L lens that is offered, or is it uniquely beneficial/implementable for wide aperture primes?
> ...


The image quality of the new 35mm L ii, had a dramatic improvement over the previous model. However, is an entirely new optical design. It is not known how much would this improvement is due to the BR element individually.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

jlev23 said:


> sigma is kicking canon's ass with the 18-35 f1.8 and all the reports of the current 16-35 being soft. so im hoping they step up their game with a wide angle announcement before the red raven comes out or canon is going to loose a lot of customers, as they are already, to sigma. i personally think they should start making their zooms parafocal, this would be a huge gain for the blurred lines of photographers and videographers and would put canon again in the forefront of the lens race. if they dont, sigma will be the natural choice of everyone moving forward.



The #1 weakness of Canon's lenses (there aren't too many, let's be fair) are UWA lenses faster than f/4. Astro folks, environmental portraiture folks and UWA event/sports folks are hurting for the same wealth of great glass the standard zoom, standard prime, tele zoom and tele prime options Canon offers. For instance, a 16-35 f/2.8L III is sorely needed by event/sports folks, and something fast + wide + coma-free for astro does not exist in Canon's lineup to my knowledge.

But I have to disagree with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Canon's not losing a wink of sleep over a Ferrari-like EF-S product that weighs nearly 2 pounds. That's a prestige item far more than it is a true threat to their business. If anything, Canon's pride is hurt more than their bottom line.

- A


----------



## nicksotgiu (Oct 26, 2015)

I'm really hoping it's the 16-35mm f2.8 III !


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 26, 2015)

Dear Canon, 
Please surprise us all with an ef 50mm 1.2 for Christmas.
Y

PS I agree with ahsanford about Canon being weak in fast UWA--but that might not be the hole Canon plugs next.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Dear Canon,
> Please surprise us all with an ef 50mm 1.2 for Christmas.
> Y
> 
> PS I agree with ahsanford about Canon being weak in fast UWA--but that might not be the hole Canon plugs next.



Yeah, Canon needs to make up it's mind whether it wants it's priciest 50mm prime to have dreamy bokeh or it wants to capture sharp images. Right now it does one and not the other...

- A


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 26, 2015)

I'm hoping for a new 50mm and/or 180mm macro lens with BR.


----------



## e_honda (Oct 26, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> I'd be all for a 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii
> 
> SERIOUSLY doubt Canon would throw IS into it though



Yeah, a 16-35 f2.8 IS would be absolutely massive (and expensive). Just look at Tamron's 15-30 f2.8 VC,plus the fact that it's a bulbous lens that can't take front filters.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

e_honda said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be all for a 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii
> ...



As an occasional landscaper, that Tamron 15-30 just boils by blood. I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring. That is now my gold standard example for 'worst lens decision ever'.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 26, 2015)

An improved 16-35/2.8 Mk. III optically as good as the 24-70/2.8 II is needed. 
IS not urgently needed. Wider on short end also "not needed". Those who want a huge expensive lens with big, bulbous front element -> just get the 11-24. 
16-35/2.8 Mk. III should remain "wide-angle event zoom", easily handheld, not heavier, bigger or a lot more expensive than Mk. II. Otherwise I might just go with 16-35 f/4. Yes, thanks for asking: many others will also see it that way. 8)


----------



## RGF (Oct 26, 2015)

the weakest of the trinity (16-35,24-70, and 70-200 all F2.8) is the 16-35. Time to update it.

Could Canon surprise us with F2.0 monster zoom? Would be nice if the IQ was stellar.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> An improved 16-35/2.8 Mk. III optically as good as the 24-70/2.8 II is needed.
> IS not urgently needed. Wider on short end also "not needed". Those who want a huge expensive lens with big, bulbous front element -> just get the 11-24.
> 16-35/2.8 Mk. III should remain "wide-angle event zoom", easily handheld, not heavier, bigger or a lot more expensive than Mk. II. Otherwise I might just go with 16-35 f/4. Yes, thanks for asking: many others will also see it that way. 8)



I'll add 'front-filterable is a must' to that list, but I agree with everything else.

- A


----------



## Perio (Oct 26, 2015)

New 85 f1.2 or 135 f2, please


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2015)

I'd like to see a 400F5.6 or even a 500F5.6 with BR tech.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2015)

It will probably be a 1200F5.6 BR DO lens that none of us can afford to buy.....


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 26, 2015)

50mm f/1.2 L BR


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> 50mm f/1.2 L BR



+1/2. I tend to believe that Canon will pump BR into fast primes before it hits the zooms, but I have little to back up besides a gut feeling.

I say +1/2 because I'm not convinced the 50L would be the next prime. The 135L and 200 f/2.8L are far older pieces of kit in need of an upgrade.

- A


----------



## chromophore (Oct 26, 2015)

The level of chromatic aberration in the 135/2L and the 200/2.8L is already very low and quite adequately controlled. It is the shorter focal lengths and faster apertures for which CA is difficult to correct; and at very long focal lengths, CA correction is limited by weight and length constraints, for which BR would help mitigate.

I don't necessarily buy into the argument that production date should be a factor in deciding which lens designs need updating. Some lenses are quite old but have held up remarkably well; the 135/2L is one of the first that comes to mind. Some new lenses keep getting revisions but still leave something to be desired--I haven't found the various incarnations of the 16-35/2.8L to be particularly lust-worthy, for example. I'm also not a fan of all the slow- and variable-aperture consumer zooms that Canon seems to spit out every six months.

My personal thinking on this is that whenever a new optical technology is developed, it should be implemented in those lenses that would stand to receive the most benefit from its use. That of course does not always mesh with the profitability motive; but I think with BR optics, Canon should use it to update the 85L, 50L, and 24L primes, as these I think would stand to benefit most. Of the zooms, all super-wide and wide zooms have problems with lateral color; whether this could be efficiently further corrected by BR optics I am not entirely sure, but if so it would be welcome.


----------



## TAF (Oct 26, 2015)

Seems to me the 24-105 is the most in need of refreshment...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

TAF said:


> Seems to me the 24-105 is the most in need of refreshment...



It already _was_ refreshed. The 24-70 f/4L IS replaced it for all intents and purposes for a paltry price of 35mm, you get a sharper lens, a lighter lens, and a super super useful 0.7x max mag, which is unheard of. That lens is now correctly kitted as the up-market choice over the 24-105.

For those who believe a 24-105L II is coming, I don't see it. Canon sees that FL range as entry level for FF and wisely introduced a cheaper STM variable max aperture version of it to keep costs down.

Reach-obsessed 'range-o-philes' hate this of course, but Canon is moving away from large FL multipliers in their L zooms in favor of sharpness. I agree with that call 100%.

- A


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 26, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> e_honda said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



To each their own. It's one of my favorite lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > e_honda said:
> ...



I'm not trying to twist anyone's arm, Dustin -- everyone's needs are different. That Tamron is a wonderful optic, please don't get me wrong, but it forces me to do a triple lutz to put on a very expensive oversized filter for landscapes. That's not worth it for me.

I'll happily concede the 15mm FL and easily/conveniently shoot from 16-35 with the much simpler / cheaper / more available 4x6 filter ecosystem that works on those front filter threads. 

- A


----------



## infared (Oct 27, 2015)

WOW!...interesting...I sold my Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II ...and bought the Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS. SO glad I did. 
It cost me nothing as selling my used lens gave me enough cash to buy the new one. What a difference in image quality and at what I would consider a reasonable price!!! Did not really miss the f/stop. My lens also handily out resolves the Tamron 15-30mm. ...but we all have different needs.
My next lens will most likely be the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art. It will complement my Canon WA Zoom beautifully when I need WAY lower DOF or need to shoot in low light... (hope the review are GREAT!)....
The whole blue glass thing is quite wonderful....but based on the price of the new 35mm f/1.4L II ... I just cannot see spending that kind of money. For instance my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is spectacular enough for me. I can imagine if there is a new 16-35mm f/2.8 mk III ....it will be so prohibitive in price (for me), that I just will keep the great lenses that I have and put my energies into my image making skills.... If I have a great one ..no one will really notice the very expensive subtle differences. ..but I am glad to see all of the lenses improving so much as the sensors resolve more. It's all pretty cool. 8)


----------



## gjones5252 (Oct 27, 2015)

I just sold my 16-35mm ii to get the 35mm 1.4 ii. I don't regret it. My usable images at the focal length are far superior. 
What I do miss is the range from 16-24 at 2.8. I tried the f4 but it wasn't cutting it no matter how good of quality. 
I for one would love! Love! To see a new 16-35. It's would be difficult to know what my next purchase would be then. Body or lens.


----------



## Zanken (Oct 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> But I have to disagree with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Canon's not losing a wink of sleep over a Ferrari-like EF-S product that weighs nearly 2 pounds. That's a prestige item far more than it is a true threat to their business. If anything, Canon's pride is hurt more than their bottom line.


I have to agree with this. Canon have recently been really poor at supporting the APS-C platform with anything other than basic beginner offerings, like the recent variable aperture zooms. I have to assume that they make a decent amount of money off of these kit bodies, and anyone actually filling in things on the more premium end would be a boon for them. 
I'd be really interested to see what fast ef-s primes would look like - in theory they should be smaller and cheaper than their full frame counter-parts (Sigma's 30mm f1.4 EX compared to the old full frame 50mm EX).



ahsanford said:


> As an occasional landscaper, that Tamron 15-30 just boils by blood. I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring. That is now my gold standard example for 'worst lens decision ever'.


They did not give up filters just to 'chase 1mm.' They also did it to achieve better IQ than the 16-35L and all of Canon's previous attempts to make this lens work. Canon themselves did this by sacrificing a stop of light. Nikon did it with the bulbous front element and achieved even wider zoom with a lot of very expensive glass. 

No one has made an f2.8 lens in this zoom range without sacrificing something very practical. It just comes down to what the customer is willing to give up. I imagine for many event shooters, weak corners and some CA is a fine compromise for being able to protect the front element.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Oct 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> e_honda said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...


It's more than just going to 1mm that caused them to use the design they did. Judging from the excellent coma performance wide open at 15mm, it was a good decision. 

Filters are becoming an unnecessary item for landscapes these days, even when using Canon cameras. There might be the rare need for some polarized filtering, but for ND and ND grads, there are solid ways around the filters. I can actually get far better results using special techniques for a 10 stop ND filter effect without color casting, exposure calculations, or any ND filters. 

I've personally been using the Sigma 8-16 all this year and going completely filterless. It's worked out great so far.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

Zanken said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But I have to disagree with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Canon's not losing a wink of sleep over a Ferrari-like EF-S product that weighs nearly 2 pounds. That's a prestige item far more than it is a true threat to their business. If anything, Canon's pride is hurt more than their bottom line.
> ...



We've beaten this one (red text above) to death, but I agree. There's no profit in Canon selling, say, a killer EF-S lens (say a mark II version of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM) for $999. They'd much rather someone feel:


Handcuffed by the limited EF-S options
Frustrated with buying an EF standard zoom like a 24-70 and constantly changing it out because it's not wide enough on crop

...in a word, they want intermediate/advanced EF-S users to feel limited & frustrated so that they feel compelled to go to a FF rig. _If you just make the plunge to FF, look at all the sweet glass you get!_

Sigma, on the other hand, cares a lot less about folks migrating to FF -- they just want to sell lenses. I'm shocked we haven't seen more on the EF-S front from them. 

- A


----------



## TheJock (Oct 27, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I'd like to see a 400F5.6 or even a 500F5.6 with BR tech.


Don, it seems that you and I are still on the same page dreaming about this affordable supertele, I don't see why a 500f5.6L BR can't be under $3000


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 27, 2015)

Here are some more guesses:
replacement for TS-E 45mm f/2.8
1.4 x Teleconverter IV
2.0 x Teleconverter IV
Something for astro like 18mm f/2 or 20mm f/1.8


----------



## romanr74 (Oct 27, 2015)

e_honda said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be all for a 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii
> ...



I don't see the need for IS in a 16-35 f/2.8 III. What I would appreciate though is better corner sharpness and less CA. I love my 16-35 f/2.8 II, yet I am at times disappointed with the corners...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 27, 2015)

chromophore said:


> The level of chromatic aberration in the 135/2L and the 200/2.8L is already very low and quite adequately controlled. It is the shorter focal lengths and faster apertures for which CA is difficult to correct; and at very long focal lengths, CA correction is limited by weight and length constraints, for which BR would help mitigate.
> 
> I don't necessarily buy into the argument that production date should be a factor in deciding which lens designs need updating. Some lenses are quite old but have held up remarkably well; the 135/2L is one of the first that comes to mind. Some new lenses keep getting revisions but still leave something to be desired--I haven't found the various incarnations of the 16-35/2.8L to be particularly lust-worthy, for example. I'm also not a fan of all the slow- and variable-aperture consumer zooms that Canon seems to spit out every six months.
> 
> My personal thinking on this is that whenever a new optical technology is developed, it should be implemented in those lenses that would stand to receive the most benefit from its use. That of course does not always mesh with the profitability motive; but I think with BR optics, Canon should use it to update the 85L, 50L, and 24L primes, as these I think would stand to benefit most. Of the zooms, all super-wide and wide zooms have problems with lateral color; whether this could be efficiently further corrected by BR optics I am not entirely sure, but if so it would be welcome.


+1, The changes I'd like on the 135L are not so much the glass, but rather 9-blade curved aperture, weather-sealing and IS. 

I've got the 24L II which is a relatively modern lens so while I agree it can benefit from the BR technology I think it is less likely to see an upgrade in the immediate future. My guess is that the 50L and 85L are more likely, and of the two the 50L is the weaker performer.


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 27, 2015)

Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?

I ask this as the for/against contentions regarding IS seems to come from two different places. 

My initial understanding is that it was primarily designed as a WA for landscape lens but it certainly has been extensively used as an event lens too. Hmmmmmmm...


----------



## InterMurph (Oct 27, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?


I use my 16-35mm f/2.8L II for events all the time. Particularly school events, where my 24-70mm F/2.8L II isn't wide enough. It's the perfect lens for getting in the middle of a crowd of people and getting the shot.

Except that the shots are incredibly soft and mushy along the edges, requiring a _lot _of cropping.


----------



## wallstreetoneil (Oct 27, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?
> 
> I ask this as the for/against contentions regarding IS seems to come from two different places.
> 
> My initial understanding is that it was primarily designed as a WA for landscape lens but it certainly has been extensively used as an event lens too. Hmmmmmmm...



I only see this lens on newspaper photogs attached to a 1Dx, held up in a scrum, firing at an athlete, politician, celeb paparazzi style. These pictures are then cropped put on the web or in print - quality of these pictures is almost irrelevant it would seem. Haven't seen a wedding photog, fashion photog or portrait photog, where clients care about quality, use this lens or FL. To drive sales as a refresh I don't see much downside in terms of 'having it' - but I don't see this being a big seller. 

In my opinion, they would be far better off bring out:
- a $3k 24-70 IS with the newest coatings (wedding, portrait, fashion) would all buy it + 5DSR people would buy it
- a $3k 85L 1.4L IS with the newest coatings, fast focus, weather sealed
- a $2k 135 1.8L IS with newest coating, weather sealed (this would be a killer Portrait, Sports, Wedding lens)


----------



## cenkog (Oct 27, 2015)

romanr74 said:


> I don't see the need for IS in a 16-35 f/2.8 III.



"IS" feature of a lens is extremely useful for everyone and for every lens... Especially in a video era like this, a non-IS lens is totally unacceptable IMO...


----------



## adventureous (Oct 27, 2015)

16-35mm f/2.8L II for real estate shots and events. I use this lens more than any other and will order the newer version asap.


----------



## NWPhil (Oct 27, 2015)

jlev23 said:


> sigma is kicking canon's ass with the 18-35 f1.8 and all the reports of the current 16-35 being soft. so im hoping they step up their game with a wide angle announcement before the red raven comes out or canon is going to loose a lot of customers, as they are already, to sigma. i personally think they should start making their zooms parafocal, this would be a huge gain for the blurred lines of photographers and videographers and would put canon again in the forefront of the lens race. if they dont, sigma will be the natural choice of everyone moving forward.




??? you are talking about the current 16-35 f/2.8 version right? not the f/4....


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?
> 
> I ask this as the for/against contentions regarding IS seems to come from two different places.
> 
> My initial understanding is that it was primarily designed as a WA for landscape lens but it certainly has been extensively used as an event lens too. Hmmmmmmm...



Sabaki, the 16-35 f/2.8L II is a staple professional lens for sports and events where you need to be close to someone. The overwhelming use you'd see on American TV is the immediate aftermath of a football game when the two coaches come together for a handshake -- they usually are ringed by a dozen photographers with Canon 16-35s and Nikkor 14-24s.

It's also used quite a bit for reportage when there are tight spaces, say, getting a shot of a politician in a crowd, getting some more immersive shots of protesters, etc. And for those that didn't want to (or have the time to) work with a T/S lens, the 16-35 lens would also get used for architecture/interiors.

One thing the 16-35 f.2.8L II is *not* used very much for is landscape work. The lens is soft in the corners compared to other offerings and Canon owners have gone elsewhere for a landscape lens. As such, the 16-35 f/4L IS was a huge get for landscapers as they didn't need the speed/weight of an f/2.8 lens and it was clearly a sharper lens.

- A


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?
> ...



Hey ahsanford!

So based on the usage cited here, IS may be beneficial or would you consider that the relatively short focal length negates the need for image stabilization?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Hey ahsanford!
> 
> So based on the usage cited here, IS may be beneficial or would you consider that the relatively short focal length negates the need for image stabilization?



If video is a need, then yes, IS is very helpful. I don't know how badly the UWA videographers out there need f/2.8 brightness, so one might argue that IS -- though helpful on all focal lengths for video and stills -- is already addressed with the 16-35 f/4L IS. 

I personally believe IS is useful on everything (I love love love it on my 28mm f/2.8 IS, where I'm often shooting handheld stills with available light in dark environments), but it does add weight and f/2.8 zooms are heavy enough already. 

Of late, Canon has shown somewhat consistently* that -- under 70mm -- f/4 zooms get IS and f/2.8 zooms do not. So regardless of what we may want, I do not expect the 16-35 f/2.8L III to have IS.

*the exception being the nutty ultra-ultrawides like the 8-15, 11-24, etc.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Hey ahsanford!
> ...


You need to put things in perspective. I don't think IS adds much weight and the 16-35mm f/2.8 is by no means heavy. If I put in in the lens pouch then I can pick mine it up with one finger. Now my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is another story that takes at least two maybe even three fingers to lift especially with the tripod collar on. 

Too heavy is a matter of personal preference. If you are willing to shoot whole day with a 24-70 f/2.8 or a 70-200mm f/2.8 then how is a 16-35mm so different. As long as the lens is nicely balanced on your camera I don't see how a few extra grams would be a problem.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> You need to put things in perspective. I don't think IS adds much weight and the 16-35mm f/2.8 is by no means heavy. If I put in in the lens pouch then I can pick mine it up with one finger. Now my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is another story that takes at least two maybe even three fingers to lift especially with the tripod collar on.
> 
> Too heavy is a matter of personal preference. If you are willing to shoot whole day with a 24-70 f/2.8 or a 70-200mm f/2.8 then how is a 16-35mm so different. As long as the lens is nicely balanced on your camera I don't see how a few extra grams would be a problem.



Please don't misunderstand me. _I want IS on everything_ -- I'm just spitballing ideas why the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 zooms haven't gotten IS while the f/4 versions do get it. 

Managing weight is one theory.

Saying that f/2.8 zoom buyers are rarely shooting stationary targets handheld in terribly low light is another theory. 

Saying that folks buying f/2.8 zooms are largely professionals who typically have better grip technique and manage their shutter speeds more effectively than amateurs (and therefore have a lower need for IS) is another theory.

And, of course, the notion that wider FLs don't need it as much as longer FLs is 100% true, but _that doesn't mean it doesn't help_ at wider FLs.

And then there's the painful theory that Canon deliberately doesn't put everything into one lens, instead wanting everyone to buy an f/2.8 zoom _and_ an f/4 IS zoom.

Again, I want it on everything. Just saying.

- A


----------



## adventureous (Oct 28, 2015)

16-35f/4L IS weighs 1.35 lb (615 g) how much of that 1.35lb is going to the image stabilization?? The 16-35F/2.8II weighs 1.4 lb (635 g) .


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

adventureous said:


> 16-35f/4L IS weighs 1.35 lb (615 g) how much of that 1.35lb is going to the image stabilization?? The 16-35F/2.8II weighs 1.4 lb (635 g) .



Not a fair comparison -- there's clearly more to that f/4 lens (new formula + far sharper) and it was developed at a later time with different components.

But there is a ready made way to size up the weight of IS vs. max aperture -- with the identical-in-most-every-other-way 70-200 L zooms:

70-200 f/4L 24.9 oz
70-200 f/4L IS 26.8 oz (7.6% increase)

70-200 f/2.8L 46.2 oz 
70-200 f/2.8L IS I* 51.9 oz (12.3% increase)

(*Deliberately chose the first IS version of this lens as that was the one that was co-developed with the non-IS one.)

So, as I think we all know, for a given focal range zoom, increasing the max aperture is a far bigger driver of the weight than IS is.

Again, my vote is to put it on everything, but I still think Canon will be stubborn with the 16-35 f/2.8L III.

- A


----------



## ranplett (Oct 28, 2015)

Well, they did say that it will likely be a zoom, and if that's the case, I can't picture another fairly standard zoom lens needing an upgrade more than the 16-35 2.8 L, especially since Canon typically pumps out a 2.8 and an IS version of each standard zoom lens, and the f4 L IS is a fairly new design. Also, it seems that there's an astrophotography boom right now, and people want a good ultrawide 2.8 zoom and will pay good money for it. The current v.II isn't so good for astrophotography.

Reasons I don't think it will be a zoom are because they are most likely losing market share to Sigma with their 50A. They just upgraded the 35 1.4 L to compete with the Sigma 35A, and I think the 50 should be next. With these primes, there is an expectation of perfection, something that the new BR element should help with.

Also, Canon's put a lot of emphasis on wide angle lenses lately, including the 11-24 L, 16-35 L IS, 17 TS-E L, etc. But all of those were f4. Hmmm.. Also, I've lost all faith in Canon's ability to produce a good 50mm.


----------



## ranplett (Oct 28, 2015)

> I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring



Re: Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC.. Is it really 1mm wider? I read on DPReview that it's equivalent to 16mm on the wide end. If that's true, it would be more like a 16-30 2.8 IS. I was excited about it until I realized it wasn't going to get much wider than the Canon. The bulbous lens element didn't help either. They feel too vulnerable, and I could actually fit the Canon 16-35 IS into my underwater case.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

ranplett said:


> Well, they did say that it will likely be a zoom, and if that's the case, I can't picture another fairly standard zoom lens needing an upgrade more than the 16-35 2.8 L, especially since Canon typically pumps out a 2.8 and an IS version of each standard zoom lens, and the f4 L IS is a fairly new design. Also, it seems that there's an astrophotography boom right now, and people want a good ultrawide 2.8 zoom and will pay good money for it. The current v.II isn't so good for astrophotography.
> 
> Reasons I don't think it will be a zoom are because they are most likely losing market share to Sigma with their 50A. They just upgraded the 35 1.4 L to compete with the Sigma 35A, and I think the 50 should be next. With these primes, there is an expectation of perfection, something that the new BR element should help with.
> 
> Also, Canon's put a lot of emphasis on wide angle lenses lately, including the 11-24 L, 16-35 L IS, 17 TS-E L, etc. But all of those were f4. Hmmm.. Also, I've lost all faith in Canon's ability to produce a good 50mm.



Agree. 

My guess is the next zoom is a 16-35 f/2.8L III without the BR technology. The next prime L should be the 50, and it all but certainly will have the BR technology, one would think.

- A


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 28, 2015)

ranplett said:


> > I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring
> 
> 
> 
> Re: Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC.. Is it really 1mm wider? I read on DPReview that it's equivalent to 16mm on the wide end. If that's true, it would be more like a 16-30 2.8 IS. I was excited about it until I realized it wasn't going to get much wider than the Canon. The bulbous lens element didn't help either. They feel too vulnerable, and I could actually fit the Canon 16-35 IS into my underwater case.



Read or watch my reviews - the Tamron is noticeably wider than either Canon 16-35mm. If it is less than 15mm, then they are less than 16mm.


----------



## tron (Oct 28, 2015)

wallstreetoneil said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?
> ...


So it would better if I 135 were to go up to 1.8 (from 2.0) but it would be better too if 85 were to go down to 1.4 (from 1.2)

Interesting thought....


----------



## ranplett (Oct 28, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ranplett said:
> 
> 
> > > I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring
> ...



"The Rokinon’s 14mm focal length produces a field of view of 115.7 degrees (WOW!), while the Tamron’s 15mm produces a field of view of a slightly more modest 110 degrees. The Canon 16-35 frames at about 108 degrees while the Nikkor 14-24 actually frames at 114 degrees (as done Canon’s own 14L lens). Just for kicks: the Zeiss 15mm also frames at 110 degrees just like the Tamron, so the exception to the rule here is the Rokinon"

From: http://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/tamron-sp-15-30mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

Thanks for clearing that up! According to some calculations, if the Tamron is truly 15mm, than it would be 110.5 degrees, and if the Canon is truly 16mm, it should be 107 degrees, which is a difference of 3.5 degrees, not the 2 degrees difference based on your numbers. I guess it's kind of like thinking that the Canon is 15.5-35mm, which plays into the lens buying decision.

I did not come across your review when I was researching, which is a shame because your reviews are really thorough and enjoyable. Keep up the good work.


----------



## infared (Oct 29, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > e_honda said:
> ...



Dustin..I read your review of the Tamron and WOW...I have to confess..that I did not know of its existence...but Tamron lost me when I saw on LensRentals (Roger) mention the "falling-out" front elements on the 24-70mm lenses, I believe it was...so I have just disregarded any of their products from that time on. I also think that when I sold off my 16-35mm f/2.8L II to buy the New 16-35mm f/4L IS that the Tamron Superwide Zoom was not yet released. I actually sold off my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 also, because I realized after owning the new Canon IS zoom that I most likely would rarely use it. (although...I may be in the market for the upcoming Sigma 20mm f/1.4 to give me a fast UWA lens to complement the Canon Zoom, for low-light or astro photos. Waiting for a review on that one).

Here is the thing with the Tamron...even after I read your extensive review, and I do respect your opinion.... I know that Tamron has a 6-year warranty...but after seeing a company that spot glues its front elements in (that can fall out), and even your own problem with your Tamron 24-70mm (the alignment issue)....Do you have the confidence when you go out with the Tamron UWA zoom that you are going to come home with the goods. Does the lens feel cheaply made or "less-than"??? 
On paper...the lens sounds perfect for me...I do not care about the filter issue, and f/2.8 with accurate AF and IS seems like a dream lens, especially when it also out performs or matches the high-end competition in sharpness, contrast and general IQ. I could live with the size of the monster for ALL of the benefits. That is my one huge hesitation. Has Tamron turned a corner like Sigma seems to have with the build, performance and design of their products? I am not a L fanbois..to the point that I will not own other manufactures...I have the Sigma 50mm and 35mm Arts (and after a return and some tuning on the dock...they are quite incredible for the price)... I know that you are not so much of fan of the Sigma's. 
It is interesting how we all have such differing experiences and opinions for our equipment...I guess that goes along with different needs, too.
Thanks for all the great, THOROUGH reviews....You always do a great job with you check out a lens!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 29, 2015)

infared said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



The 15-30 is a tank of a lens. It is very, very well made. You'll find that I used the 16-35mm f/2.8 and f/4L IS lenses alongside it for an extended period of time (I didn't own any of them at the time), and I personally chose the Tamron. 

As for the 24-70 VC - I have used it more roughly and frequently than any other lens for three years in half a dozen countries and all weather conditions - it actually hasn't let me down at all. I don't know what to say about the "front element" falling out, but that seems like a bit of hyperbole to me. My copy has paid for itself many, many times over (including a single shot used -ironically - by Canon to promote the 6D) ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The 15-30 is a tank of a lens. It is very, very well made. You'll find that I used the 16-35mm f/2.8 and f/4L IS lenses alongside it for an extended period of time (I didn't own any of them at the time), and I personally chose the Tamron.



+1. 

As much as I lament the front filter ring decision, the 15-30 f/2.8 VC appears to be as formidable a piece of kit Dustin's review is stellar (as are the pictures he took with the wonderpana setup on that lens!).

I'll stick with my 16-35 F/4L IS because convenient front-filtering is massive for me, but that Tamron is a fine tool.

- A


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 29, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The 15-30 is a tank of a lens. It is very, very well made. You'll find that I used the 16-35mm f/2.8 and f/4L IS lenses alongside it for an extended period of time (I didn't own any of them at the time), and I personally chose the Tamron.
> ...



The 16-35mm f/4L IS is an equally good lens in a number of ways. It definitely is smaller, lighter, and you can use standard filters. It's not a great astro lens, but that is really its only true shortcoming. The Tamron just excites me more, for whatever reason. It has less distortion, less vignette, and of course has the wider f/2.8 aperture that I use for events and in low light.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 29, 2015)

I'm gonna add another guess: EF 85mm f/2 IS STM


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 29, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> I'm gonna add another guess: EF 85mm f/2 IS STM



would be nice, but i doubt they could make it small & light enough and unexpensive enough to pass as an EF-M lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> I'm gonna add another guess: EF 85mm f/2 IS STM



If they update the 85 f/1.8 USM by slowing it down and giving it slower STM focusing, people would likely be pissed. Consider: the triumvirate of non-L 'IS refresh' lenses (24/28/35) did not get any slower. 

The non-L 50mm and 85mm need IS and USM 100%. Those are staple still photography tools.

- A


----------



## TAF (Oct 30, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me the 24-105 is the most in need of refreshment...
> ...




While your analysis is probably correct, I sincerely hope it is proven wrong.

The 24-70 doesn't cover enough range for it to be an adequate all-around lens. The 24-105 barely does...I was rather hoping for 24-150 or so.

Bottom line, I can carry two fast(er) primes and get better results than the 24-70 yields, without experiencing too much inconvenience.


----------



## infared (Oct 30, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...


That's FUNNY! Thanks for the input. Your opinion will make me look twice at Tamron offerings in the future...and reconsider my UWA zoom situation.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 30, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > I'm gonna add another guess: EF 85mm f/2 IS STM
> ...


I wasn't suggesting it as an update to the 85mm f/1.8 USM, but rather as a completely different video oriented lens. Think servo-AF in video with shallow depth of field. An example would be interviews where you want to throw the background way out of focus but still allow the subject some freedom to lean forward and back without them drifting out of focus. Also low-light events like school plays/concerts. Also a useful portrait focal length. Wouldn't STM provide sufficient AF speed for the casual photographer?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Sure -- as a side by side with the 85 f/1.8 USM, I could see that working. But both the 50 f/1.4 USM and 85 f/1.8 USM will be replaced before too long -- they have to be.

- A


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Oct 30, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The 15-30 is a tank of a lens. It is very, very well made. You'll find that I used the 16-35mm f/2.8 and f/4L IS lenses alongside it for an extended period of time (I didn't own any of them at the time), and I personally chose the Tamron.
> ...



+1 again on the front element. I traded in my 16-35L II for the Tamron 15-30. After using it awhile Im very glad I did, even though the Tamron is HUGE and heavy comparably. I wouldn't have thought Tamron could beat out Canon..But the corner coma difference is very noticeable. (especially for astro) . So now id say its Nikon 14-24,tamron 15-30, canon 16-35f/2.8 II. 
All that being said. I really hope the new lens will be a 16-35L f/2.8III. So you can have a filter set that doesn't resemble Mark Mothersbaughs' DEVO hat in size ! And then cost. How could it be released at less than 2800USD? So id wait for a price drop while I enjoy this Tamron


----------



## martti (Nov 1, 2015)

Somehow something in the back of my brain is telling me that there will be a 55mm f/1.2. 
Just for the old times...like the FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC I had 30 years ago.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 3, 2015)

Please "gojuu" f1.4L IS USM


----------

