# Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 12, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/images-of-the-new-ef-16-35-f4l-is-ef-s-10-18-f4-5-5-6-is-stm/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/images-of-the-new-ef-16-35-f4l-is-ef-s-10-18-f4-5-5-6-is-stm/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>The first images for the new lenses that <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/ef-s-10-18-f4-5-5-6-is-stm-ef-16-35-f4l-is-around-the-corner-cr2/" target="_blank">were reported last week</a> are making their way around the web. Below are the first images of the upcoming Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS and the Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lenses.</p>
<p>These lenses will be announced sometime in the next 12 hours or so.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/wpid-canon_ef16-35f4l1.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-16488" alt="1635f4" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/wpid-canon_ef16-35f4l1.jpeg" width="500" height="334" /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/wpid-canon_ef-s10-18f45-561.jpeg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-16487" alt="efs1018" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/wpid-canon_ef-s10-18f45-561.jpeg" width="500" height="355" /></a></p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/35mm-f4l-is-usmef-s10-18m.html" target="_blank">DCI</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## candyman (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

I am very curious about the quality of the 16-35 f/4 IS.
Can't wait for the reviews...

EDIT: interesting to see the design matching the 24-70 II
Maybe the new Canon L line?


----------



## Lightmaster (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



candyman said:


> I am very curious about the quality



and price.

would be nice when canons suprises us with a price like sigma... well i can dream.


----------



## TLN (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



candyman said:


> EDIT: interesting to see the design matching the 24-70 II
> Maybe the new Canon L line?


That's the reason it looks fake to me..


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Price....
Expecting the 10-18mm to be twice the price of the 18-55mm - due to a smaller market, than the kit lens
Expecting the 16-35mm f4 IS to start just a tad more costly than the 16-35mm f2.8 II, dropping to about 4/5th's of the price, then a new 16-35mm f2.8 III coming in at nearly twice the price of the f4.0 in about 12 months... Both as sharp as current primes


----------



## pierlux (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Finally! It seems the year of the lens is about to begin...


----------



## Hardwire (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?
Is it to replace the 17-40 F4? If so and assuming this is for landscape then it will need to be very good quality as the 17-40 is fairly cheap these days. And again assuming this is aimed at landscape/building photography...do you need IS?

If it is to replace the 16-35 F2.8.....with an F4 lens? Sure the IS is welcome for handholding shots...but that will never replace faster glass when shooting low light (thinking weddings and events etc).

Seems like it is stuck in between two lens (16-35 F2.8 & 17-40 F4) to me??


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

In principle, I'm not bothered by having more options, even if I do not buy any of them. If the image quality is good, and suitable price I would like to try in the future.


----------



## Lightmaster (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



> do you need IS?



Video


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



TLN said:


> That's the reason it looks fake to me..



The barrel looks less fat than the 24-70II, the depth of the zoom/focus are different but the real clincher that this is real is the forward facing lens surround which doesn't look like the 24-70II to me... 77mm ? I hope not, I'm invested in 82mm now


----------



## TLN (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Hardwire said:


> I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?
> Is it to replace the 17-40 F4? If so and assuming this is for landscape then it will need to be very good quality as the 17-40 is fairly cheap these days. And again assuming this is aimed at landscape/building photography...do you need IS?
> 
> If it is to replace the 16-35 F2.8.....with an F4 lens? Sure the IS is welcome for handholding shots...but that will never replace faster glass when shooting low light (thinking weddings and events etc).
> ...



My thoughts, exactly.
I've bought a 17-40 for less then $500 recently, in perfect condition. I know it have some drawbacks, and not perfect. So is 16-35II, compared to 35L I own. 
That new lenses should be really, really sharp and rise the quality mark. Otherwise I'd prefer primes over them.


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Hardwire said:


> I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?



Probably going to be tack sharp into the corners, continues Canons theme of f2.8/f4.0 prime rivalling zooms - the 17-40 although cheap and popular won't bring as much profit for Canon as a new toy that people will want to spend silly money on.... Although I suspect they will make sheds more profit from the lower margin, higher volume 10-18mm


----------



## Etienne (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

A really sharp, contrasty, low distortion 16 - 35 f/4L IS that's smaller and lighter than the 16-35 2.8 would be a real winner at $1200 - $1300 for me.


----------



## Sabaki (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Purely speculating here but maybe the 16-35 f/4.0 replaces the 17-40 and the 12/14-24 f/2.8 could take the top wide angle position from the 16-35 f/2.8ii. 

I do hope so, I'm more keen on a 12/14-24mm reticulinear that a next gen 16-35.


----------



## Sabaki (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Just noted the STM designation. Is it logical to always pair STM with IS? 

Would seem that combination serves videography well.


----------



## pierlux (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Haydn1971 said:


> 77mm ? I hope not, I'm invested in 82mm now


By a rough visual evaluation it looks <82mm. I guess the majority here would welcome a 77mm front thread.

By now, I'm happy with my 16-35 f/2.8. But I can't wait to read the reviews and look at pictures taken handheld with IS, I'm wondering how long can we expose and still have a sharp image.


----------



## minus28 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Hmm. So Sigma gives us sharper, higher quality and cheaper and Canon's market response.. ermm, more of exactly the same as before?


----------



## Viggo (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

I went for a trip to Rome and IS there would have meant ISO 160 indoors instead of 2500, and there were LOTS of places there they will kick you out if you use a tripod. IS on 16mm is to increase dof and lower iso's and let's me leave the god awful mess of a tripod at home, I hate them..


----------



## mackguyver (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

I'm waiting for the MTF curves! I'm crossing my fingers that Canon has finally figured out how to make a sharp wide angle zoom lens for full frames.


----------



## lol (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

The 10-18 is interesting to me. It seems an ideal "third zoom" for the budget starter, alongside the 18-55 and 55-250. If the quality and price is in line with those, I'll bite. For my occasional wide angle uses, I don't really want to spend more.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Hardwire said:


> I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?
> Is it to replace the 17-40 F4? If so and assuming this is for landscape then it will need to be very good quality as the 17-40 is fairly cheap these days. And again assuming this is aimed at landscape/building photography...do you need IS?
> 
> If it is to replace the 16-35 F2.8.....with an F4 lens? Sure the IS is welcome for handholding shots...but that will never replace faster glass when shooting low light (thinking weddings and events etc).
> ...



It absolutely is in-between two lenses. That's fine, as neither are sharp in the corners. If it's a real product (and it's sizing up to be so) I would liken this lens to the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS -- a lens in-between two current ones that will be hated at first glance for 'why did they make this?' reasons, and then (by some) loved for the IQ it delivers. This lens will be sharper than the current wide zooms Canon sells and that's a good thing. 

Also, not everyone is shooting landscapes at F/11 with wide zooms -- a modern autofocusing wide lens that is center sharp wide open and possibly corner sharp by F/5.6 or so would be terrific in my book.

So I'm not looking at a 16-35 F/4 IS as being on- or off-target; I'm looking at it as an _improvement_. We should welcome that, even if it's not the lens we think we need right now. 

- A


----------



## RGF (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Haydn1971 said:


> Price....
> Expecting the 10-18mm to be twice the price of the 18-55mm - due to a smaller market, than the kit lens
> Expecting the 16-35mm f4 IS to start just a tad more costly than the 16-35mm f2.8 II, dropping to about 4/5th's of the price, then a new 16-35mm f2.8 III coming in at nearly twice the price of the f4.0 in about 12 months... Both as sharp as current primes



if that is the case, they introduced them in the wrong order. Introduce the more expensive one first, get people who need sharpness, not F2.8, to buy the $3,000 lens Then offer the cheaper alternative.

Based upon this lens being introduced I don't think there will be 16-35III, rather some other lens that is compelling for people to upgrade (perhaps a 14-24)???


----------



## Random Orbits (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Wondering how the 16-35 f/4 will affect the sale of the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses. How many people would value the wider focal length range compared to an extra stop? Granted the 24 and 28mm lenses are much smaller, but stilll...


----------



## Cory (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22? I think I might like to have that (to complement my 35 2.0 IS).


----------



## Dylan777 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

4stop IS & sharp as Nik 14-24 or better............I'm in 

Can't wait to see MTF chart. Body looks like 24-70 II which very promising.


----------



## Lightmaster (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Cory said:


> Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22?



well... what do you think?


----------



## Random Orbits (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Dylan777 said:


> 4stop IS & sharp as Nik 14-24 or better............I'm in
> 
> Can't wait to see MTF chart. Body looks like 24-70 II which very promising.



I find that IS isn't as effective at these shorter FLs. I played with the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS lens, and I can get sharp pics at around 1/20s with IS off without too much difficulty. 4 stops from that would be close to 1s, and those were far from being sharp with any type of consistency...


----------



## Dylan777 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



minus28 said:


> Hmm. So Sigma gives us sharper, higher quality and cheaper and Canon's market response.. ermm, more of exactly the same as before?



Don't you think a bit early for this? Let's wait for the MTF.


----------



## lol (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Cory said:


> Is it too early to compare the 10-18 to the 10-22? I think I might like to have that (to complement my 35 2.0 IS).



It is rather early since we know practically nothing other than the claimed leaked image.

Just saw it pointed out elsewhere it has a plastic mount, if that may alter expectations...


----------



## cellomaster27 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

YES!! FINALLY A LENS. NO TWO LENSES FROM CANON! 

all this time this year was...sigma, sigma, sigma, rokinon.. and CR1's. It's not anything revolutionary but I have to say that these lenses are going to find spots in photographers bags soon. Especially the 10-18mm efs considering a good price point.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Random Orbits said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > 4stop IS & sharp as Nik 14-24 or better............I'm in
> ...



I don't have steady hands. Without IS, the slowest shutter speed I'm willing to shoot is 1/60. Be able to shoot 1/10 and still getting sharp image would be a dream for many of us. It's nice to see Canon starts realeasing new lenses. Hope they will bring their best 50mm to the game.


----------



## JonAustin (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Hardwire said:


> I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS? Seems like it is stuck in between two lens (16-35 F2.8 & 17-40 F4) to me??



I think that the 17-40 will continue on in the active product line for a few more years; it may eventually phase out. The next 16-35/2.8 will be equipped with IS (just like the next 24-70/2.8 will).

My 17-40 turns 11 this month. I don't use it nearly as much as I used to in my crop days (not much of a wide-angle guy), but I'll replace it with the 16-35/4 IS in a couple of years, after its price has settled, and a year rolls around when there's nothing else I want to buy. (Like the 35/2 IS this year.)


----------



## MichaelHodges (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

This 16-35 IS looks amazing. But I have a very good copy of a 17-40. 

Nice to see new lenses people will actually buy, though.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

I think there is a healthy market for all of the EF wide angle zoom lenses (17-40, 16-35 2.8 (non-is) and the 16-35 f4 with is). Nikon currently has 4 wide angle zooms available on the market and haven't phased out their older 17-35 2.8 non-is and have added a cheaper version like the 17-40 equivalent onto the market. One for cheapie budgets that don't want to cough up more than 1k on a zoom and the other segement above 1k and another over 2k.

Just like the rebel cheapie market, 70d, 7d, and 6d.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Canon 14-24 said:


> I think there is a healthy market for all of the EF wide angle zoom lenses (17-40, 16-35 2.8 (non-is) and the 16-35 f4 with is). Nikon currently has 4 wide angle zooms available on the market and haven't phased out their older 17-35 2.8 non-is and have added a cheaper version like the 17-40 equivalent onto the market. One for cheapie budgets that don't want to cough up more than 1k on a zoom and the other segement above 1k and another over 2k.
> 
> Just like the rebel cheapie market, 70d, 7d, and 6d.



I would be happy to see Canon have the same range of WA offerings. But the real question is whether this new 16-35 f/4 will be around $1,300, or priced simply ridiculous.


----------



## Murilo_mms (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Definetely I´ll buy 16-35mm 4IS if it costs below U$ 1,300.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I would be happy to see Canon have the same range of WA offerings. But the real question is whether this new 16-35 f/4 will be around $1,300, or priced simply ridiculous.



I don't think they will push the envelope past $1699.99 as the Canon 16-35 2.8. However the Nikon offering being at $1250-ish, I think Canon can/will push the envelope of the initial offering price to higher than $1300 maybe $1399 or maybe even $1499.


----------



## tron (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Haydn1971 said:


> TLN said:
> 
> 
> > That's the reason it looks fake to me..
> ...


82mm filter thread for an f/4 lens?


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Canon 14-24 said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I would be happy to see Canon have the same range of WA offerings. But the real question is whether this new 16-35 f/4 will be around $1,300, or priced simply ridiculous.
> ...



Depends on how much better the optics are, but I think your intuition is probably not far off. 

An example that would be dead-on to what you are saying:

The coexistence of the 70-200 F/2.8L (non-IS) and the 70-200 F/4L IS at nearly the same price. IQ of the two (from what I've read) is very close, so it's a value proposition of the [speed] + [opportunity to use 2x T/C with retained AF] of the F/2.8 versus the [IS] + [lighter] + [smaller] + [10 years newer] of the F/4L IS. Canon apparently thinks those combinations of features are of equal value to photographers and price them accordingly.

An example that would speak against what you are saying:

24-70 F/2.8L I or II vs. the 24-70 F/4L IS. Take away the 2x T/C opportunity (not compatible at this length) and my prior comparison of speed vs. lighter / IS still works. But in these cases, the IQ is _not_ the same between these lenses, and the prices are therefore quite different.

- A


----------



## infared (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



My thoughts, exactly.
I've bought a 17-40 for less then $500 recently, in perfect condition. I know it have some drawbacks, and not perfect. So is 16-35II, compared to 35L I own. 
That new lenses should be really, really sharp and rise the quality mark. Otherwise I'd prefer primes over them.
[/quote]

How do you compare a 35L to the 16-35 f/2.8II? One thing that the 16-35mm can do a whole lot better than the 35L is 16-34mm!!!!!!!! LOL..you had to know you were walking into that one! ;D


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



tron said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > TLN said:
> ...



Agree. I think 77mm is the new F/4 _zoom_ lens standard and 82mm is the new F/2.8 zoom lens standard.

Primes similarly are odd ducks and also offer the odd inconvenience to us:

*24L 77mm*
35L 72mm
50L 72mm
85L 72mm
*100L 67mm*
135L 72mm
200L 72mm (the never-referred-to 200mm F/2.8L II, not the legendary White Gun-Trumpet of Bokeh, the 200m F/2L IS)

FWIW, I'd like to stay a 3 diameter filter guy if I can. Right now I'm 58/77 for everything I own except for the 100L. Here's hoping this new F/4L will be the same.

- A


----------



## scyrene (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Haydn1971 said:
> ...



I don't use filters much, so maybe I'm missing something. But I have an ND filter that I got for the 24-105 (which is 77mm if I remember rightly), and got some step-down rings so it fits the other lenses I have. Is there any reason to have a filter for each lens? The only things I can think of are marginal time saving, not having to swap from one to another, and I suppose those people who have clear/UV filters for protection (not my thing) would want each lens covered.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

As an owner of the current EF-S 10-22, the STM lens here isn't very interesting to me. If/when I switch to ff though, the 16-35 would be attractive if the price/performance is right.


----------



## mrsfotografie (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Hardwire said:


> I know this must have been done to death, and is probably down to my own ignorance....but what is the point in the 16-35 F4 IS?
> Is it to replace the 17-40 F4? If so and assuming this is for landscape then it will need to be very good quality as the 17-40 is fairly cheap these days. And again assuming this is aimed at landscape/building photography...do you need IS?
> 
> If it is to replace the 16-35 F2.8.....with an F4 lens? Sure the IS is welcome for handholding shots...but that will never replace faster glass when shooting low light (thinking weddings and events etc).
> ...



Yeah, looks like Canon is making a range of consumer level 'L' lenses in full frame format, to suit the 6D


----------



## mrsfotografie (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Like I said in an earlier topic: This may be a dealbreaker for 17-40 F/4 owners who value the added flexibility of the 40mm focal length if the new lens isn't a 17-40 F4 IS.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



mrsfotografie said:


> Like I said in an earlier topic: This may be a dealbreaker for 17-40 F/4 owners who value the added flexibility of the 40mm focal length if the new lens isn't a 17-40 F4 IS.



Whereas I understand this point made by 24-105 F/4L IS vs. 24-70 F/4L IS folks -- that the added length is vital for some folks -- I don't in this comparison. If this new lens happens, which it looks like it will, I expect the 5mm of length some 17-40 F/4L folks are losing to be absolutely crushed by the general improvement in IQ. 

Even in its sweet spot (test data says F/5.6-F.8, landscapers in this forum always speak about F/11 it seems), the 17-40L shows that it is a good-but-not-great lens. Yes, people are taking stellar pictures with it today, but they are doing so within the framework of limitations that lens shackles the photographer with -- soft corners in particular, even when stopped way down. Given the clear IQ upsides of all of Canon's recent lens offerings* -- the 24-70 F/2.8 II, the 24-70 F/4, the non-L IS refreshes, etc. -- we should be expecting a much sharper lens than its predecessor. 

_That_, in my mind, it worth losing 5mm for. But I understand others' opinions may vary depending on what they shoot.
_
*Just curious: We certainly enjoy making fun of Canon's choices of what to design, but what's the last EF lens Canon put out that had a predecessor (or something similar to predecessor) where the new lens didn't perform well? It may not have had the FL, max aperture or IS you wanted, but when's the last time Canon released an EF dud of a lens IQ-wise?_

- A


----------



## chromophore (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Notice how these new lenses are SUPER SLOW? The lie we're being sold is that IS makes up for the 1-stop loss. I predicted this trend years ago--that Canon's lens development will go in the direction of slower-aperture, IS designs that are more profitable because they don't need tighter tolerances or more expensive optical designs, but the price tag is "justified" because, oh, wait, it's got IS, as if that will totally make up for the slowness.

I'm frankly sick of this. Especially in light of how even a company like Sigma can make a sub $1000 50/1.4 lens that beats the pants off of anything Canon or Nikon has *ever* made at that focal length, and has people comparing it to a $3500 MF lens from Zeiss.

These new lenses will be overpriced (the L being at least $2100, I guarantee it), and will still under-perform even though it will be a little better in the corner sharpness over its predecessors. At such short focal lengths, almost any IS advantage is nullified by the fact that unless you're shooting something that's completely stationary, the shutter speeds at which IS would be relevant would result in subject motion blur.


----------



## Viggo (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



ahsanford said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said in an earlier topic: This may be a dealbreaker for 17-40 F/4 owners who value the added flexibility of the 40mm focal length if the new lens isn't a 17-40 F4 IS.
> ...



I didn't think the 24-70 f4 L IS offered any improvement in IQ over the 24-105, except a better mag ratio. At least that's my understanding of why people didn't get that lens and was hating on it.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



mrsfotografie said:


> Like I said in an earlier topic: This may be a dealbreaker for 17-40 F/4 owners who value the added flexibility of the 40mm focal length if the new lens isn't a 17-40 F4 IS.



I would trade 5mm at the long end for 1mm more on the wide end any day, whether it helps performance or not


----------



## Viggo (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



chromophore said:


> Notice how these new lenses are SUPER SLOW? The lie we're being sold is that IS makes up for the 1-stop loss. I predicted this trend years ago--that Canon's lens development will go in the direction of slower-aperture, IS designs that are more profitable because they don't need tighter tolerances or more expensive optical designs, but the price tag is "justified" because, oh, wait, it's got IS, as if that will totally make up for the slowness.
> 
> I'm frankly sick of this. Especially in light of how even a company like Sigma can make a sub $1000 50/1.4 lens that beats the pants off of anything Canon or Nikon has *ever* made at that focal length, and has people comparing it to a $3500 MF lens from Zeiss.
> 
> These new lenses will be overpriced (the L being at least $2100, I guarantee it), and will still under-perform even though it will be a little better in the corner sharpness over its predecessors. At such short focal lengths, almost any IS advantage is nullified by the fact that unless you're shooting something that's completely stationary, the shutter speeds at which IS would be relevant would result in subject motion blur.



I repeat, 16mm with 4 stops of IS would have made almost all my shots from Rome at 160 ISO instead of 2500 ISO, how is that not a useful advantage??

And have we forgot about the 24-70 f2.8 mk2. And the 24 and 28 f2.8 are the same apertures they always been, but now much higher IQ, same with the 35 f2 IS.

But I will agree with you that Sigma is having the edge now, the 50 art does destroy anything else and I love it. If Sigma keeps making that quality lenses at those prices and release a 14-24 f2.8, 135 f2 (1.8) OS, Canon WILL be in trouble they never had to deal with just a a short while back since the release of the 35 Art.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



chromophore said:


> These new lenses will be overpriced (the L being at least $2100, I guarantee it), and will still under-perform even though it will be a little better in the corner sharpness over its predecessors. At such short focal lengths, almost any IS advantage is nullified by the fact that unless you're shooting something that's completely stationary, the shutter speeds at which IS would be relevant would result in subject motion blur.



+1

IS is useful, but people here seem to overstate its utility. The only benefit of IS on a UWA is what others have mentioned previously (Indoor architectural shots where tripods aren't allowed) and then video application.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



chromophore said:


> Notice how these new lenses are SUPER SLOW? The lie we're being sold is that IS makes up for the 1-stop loss. I predicted this trend years ago--that Canon's lens development will go in the direction of slower-aperture, IS designs that are more profitable because they don't need tighter tolerances or more expensive optical designs, but the price tag is "justified" because, oh, wait, it's got IS, as if that will totally make up for the slowness.
> 
> I'm frankly sick of this. Especially in light of how even a company like Sigma can make a sub $1000 50/1.4 lens that beats the pants off of anything Canon or Nikon has *ever* made at that focal length, and has people comparing it to a $3500 MF lens from Zeiss.
> 
> These new lenses will be overpriced (the L being at least $2100, I guarantee it), and will still under-perform even though it will be a little better in the corner sharpness over its predecessors. At such short focal lengths, almost any IS advantage is nullified by the fact that unless you're shooting something that's completely stationary, the shutter speeds at which IS would be relevant would result in subject motion blur.



One theory, and I lack data for it: IS is more valuable to a larger market of shooters, i.e. amateurs with Rebels, enthusiasts with 70Ds, etc. Speaking to the former group, most people who are just getting into photography want a sharp image much much more than they want a shallow DOF.

So one might argue -- just conjecture here -- that in 20 years, we _still_ won't have an F/2 zoom or a native Canon EF mount F/0.9 50mm or 85mm lens, but we likely will have a host of F/4 lenses with 5, 6, 7 stops of IS. You may not like it, but I think that's where it's going...

_...at least with Canon_. I'm enjoying immensely the journey of Sigma from budget / niche-filling lens designers into a braver no-one's-ever-done-_this_-before sort of company. Love it love it love it.

- A


----------



## wickidwombat (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Lightmaster said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am very curious about the quality
> ...



Hey they did with the pancake....
And the ef-m 11-22 is pretty great bang for buck

Wow it's been a while since they released a great lens
So underwhelmed by all this middle of the road gear they are putting out 
At way inflated prices


----------



## Random Orbits (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



chromophore said:


> Notice how these new lenses are SUPER SLOW? The lie we're being sold is that IS makes up for the 1-stop loss. I predicted this trend years ago--that Canon's lens development will go in the direction of slower-aperture, IS designs that are more profitable because they don't need tighter tolerances or more expensive optical designs, but the price tag is "justified" because, oh, wait, it's got IS, as if that will totally make up for the slowness.
> 
> I'm frankly sick of this. Especially in light of how even a company like Sigma can make a sub $1000 50/1.4 lens that beats the pants off of anything Canon or Nikon has *ever* made at that focal length, and has people comparing it to a $3500 MF lens from Zeiss.
> 
> These new lenses will be overpriced (the L being at least $2100, I guarantee it), and will still under-perform even though it will be a little better in the corner sharpness over its predecessors. At such short focal lengths, almost any IS advantage is nullified by the fact that unless you're shooting something that's completely stationary, the shutter speeds at which IS would be relevant would result in subject motion blur.



Not really slower than the lenses they replaced. 24, 28 and 35mm IS lenses replaced those of the same aperture. They offer IQ upgrades and IS to what they replaced. They were not designed to replace the 24L II or the 35L. Like others, I don't think the 16-35 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 16-35 f/2.8 II. I think it'll eventually replace the 17-40 just as we might be seeing the 24-70 f/4 IS replace the 24-105 f/4 IS. I just hope that the 16-35 III will be able to retain the 82mm filters... not looking forward to 95mm filters.

The 24-70 f/2.8 II has the best IQ of any mid-range zoom. I expect the new wave of L primes that fall along that FL range to be better than the 24-70 f/2.8 II.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Viggo said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > Notice how these new lenses are SUPER SLOW? The lie we're being sold is that IS makes up for the 1-stop loss. I predicted this trend years ago--that Canon's lens development will go in the direction of slower-aperture, IS designs that are more profitable because they don't need tighter tolerances or more expensive optical designs, but the price tag is "justified" because, oh, wait, it's got IS, as if that will totally make up for the slowness.
> ...



This is an old argument, and it's not one you win in a forum (Also: using UV filters on lenses, 24-70 F/4 vs. 24-105 F/4, etc.).

In this case, it all depends on what you shoot. If what you shoot is stationary, IS is _like_ speed, and it is loved. Or, in comparison to what a non-IS lens would have to do, that IS buys you flexibility (like your Rome example) -- you can walk down the ISO stop-for-stop with the amount of IS, or you can stop down aperture at the same ISO and gain more working depth of field in (generally) a sharper aperture than having to shoot wide open.

So for you (and for me), IS is a massive win. 

But if you are shooting moving targets or want tiny DOF, faster glass is the better call. An F/4 IS lens will capture subject movement that an F/1.4, F/2, etc. would not. In those cases, aperture trumps IS and you need to pay the big bucks for the fast glass.

- A


----------



## Viggo (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



ahsanford said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > chromophore said:
> ...


So really what's your point? I can't think of a single lens other than the 200 f1.8 that's been replaced by a slower lens?

The 16-35 f4 L IS is alongside the other f4 zooms available, not to replace the 16-35 f2.8 II as stated above her by others. You have the option to buy a fast lens already and there will come new lenses with the same aperture.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



CarlMillerPhoto said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > These new lenses will be overpriced (the L being at least $2100, I guarantee it), and will still under-perform even though it will be a little better in the corner sharpness over its predecessors. At such short focal lengths, almost any IS advantage is nullified by the fact that unless you're shooting something that's completely stationary, the shutter speeds at which IS would be relevant would result in subject motion blur.
> ...



Disagree, respectfully. Those might be the only _professional_ needs for UWA with IS, but it has practical uses for enthusiasts as well. And I'm not a pro, but I'd imagine the pros in this forum could conjure up more uses of IS with UWA.

If I'm shooting handheld without a flash (i.e. often), and I had two options, let's say at 24mm, I could use a 24mm F/1.4L II or a 16-35mm F/4L IS.

For a non-moving target (i.e. 95% of what I shoot), the IS lens -- 2 stops of glass slower but 4 stops of IS 'faster' -- buys me the opportunity to walk the ISO down away from a noisy place or the opportunity to keep the ISO where it was and stop the aperture down to a sharper place with more working DOF. So, in that case, IS has bought me flexibility / elbow room for my composition and image quality. 

It's not right / it's not wrong -- it's just valuable for what I shoot. It may not be so for you, esp. if you are shooting stills of moving things without a flash (which many on this forum are).

But here's the ruthless math of it: IS is easier/cheaper/lighter to improve than aperture is. So, as I just said above, expect lots of F/4, F/2.8 lenses with 4, 5, 6, 7 stops of IS as time goes on. For that reason alone, this trend of IS isn't going away one bit -- it will be applied nearly everywhere in a few years.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Viggo said:


> I didn't think the 24-70 f4 L IS offered any improvement in IQ over the 24-105, except a better mag ratio. At least that's my understanding of why people didn't get that lens and was hating on it.



There are nice things you get with the 24-70 F/4L IS for losing that 35mm of length:


Sharper
Less distortion
The 0.7x MM makes it a very serviceable macro if you don't want to bring one
Lighter (very slightly) - obviously, less important, it's not a huge difference like comparing an F/2.8 to an F/4 lens
Shorter (slightly) - obviously, less important

Data: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests
(Photozone largely agrees with this)

Again, 24-105 folks legitimately can cry bloody murder that with the same development money, Canon should have made a 24-105 version II, but I _really_ like my 24-70 F/4 for the above reasons. Your mileage with it may vary.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Viggo said:


> So really what's your point? I can't think of a single lens other than the 200 f1.8 that's been replaced by a slower lens?
> 
> The 16-35 f4 L IS is alongside the other f4 zooms available, not to replace the 16-35 f2.8 II as stated above her by others. You have the option to buy a fast lens already and there will come new lenses with the same aperture.



The point is: F/4 IS vs. F/2.8 non-IS isn't a matter of better or worse -- they are different lenses for different needs. 

When people throw their hands up and ask 'why the hell is Canon making this?', I am trying to give an answer. And my answer is 'Because another part of the photography/videography world wants it, and here's why.' I'm not politicking for Canon, I'm just sharing my perspective as to why they might be doing this.

- A


----------



## Slyham (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

I have been saving for a uwa for a crop camera for a while. It is always nice when there are more choices. 

I think the 10-18, 18-55, and 55-250 all STM and IS with a Rebel with DPAF would be a killer kit for the amateur photographer/videographer.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

I read the first few pages filled with the same negative comments about f/4 zooms and IS in UWA lenses and it was refreshing to see the cogent reasoning put forward by Viggo and ahsanford.

I wrote the following a few days before the CR2 rumor of the f/4 IS UWA was posted, so it was made out of commonsense, not hindsight. I think it explains the business motive behind such a lens:



sagittariansrock said:


> Let's look at the market-
> A. Is there a room for UWA with IS?- yes- videography, high resolution of modern sensors (see wide angle IS primes). Also, corner resolution of the 17-40 could be improved and that will attract a lot of new customers.
> B. Is there a room for a sharp, fast, ultrawide? - look at Nikon 14-24 sales. I don't have the numbers- but if it sells in large numbers, then that is an indication for Canon to approach that segment.
> 
> ...



I agree with a comment above saying a newer f/2.8 should have been released first (if at all) from Canon's perspective, because:
If they have an 16-35 f/2.8 III/14-24 f/2.8 for $ 3000 then they can raise their price point for the f/4 IS to >price of 16-35 f/2.8 II. Not so in the current scenario, because the 16-35 II will keep cannibalizing this new segment and prevent it from taking off.
This can mean one of two things: 
1. Canon is not planning to bring out a newer f/2.8 zoom anytime soon- and this is more than likely. The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 came out 7 years ago, and yet Canon hasn't produced anything to compete- so it could be that the market is insignificant, or Canon R&D hasn't produced anything equal that is cost-effective. So sharp, fast UWA lovers, it might be a longer wait.
2. Canon will introduce the 4-lens design that Nikon has, and price the f/4 IS below and the fast f/2.8 above the 16-25 f/2.8 which stays on. This will introduce a scenario similar to the 70-200 zooms, which will probably be followed by the discontinuation of the cheaper f/2.8 and people just spending $$$s for the amazing IQ as we also see in the 70-200 domain. 

Fingers crossed. I won't be buying an UWA anytime soon, but maybe in 2015 when the price settles down a bit. Who knows?


----------



## Zv (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

I welcome IS in a UWA. There are loads of advantages that aren't as obvious right away like when you start using filters that eat up one or two stops of light such as a CPL. We've all been there where you go from outdoors to indoors, go to take a shot and realize the polarizer is still on! 

Also, I dunno about you guys but I'm shaky even at 1/50s which if we are to rely on the 1/focal length rule should be OK for 35mm shots handheld (using last decades low res camera??). I've found myself shooting at 1/10s @ 17mm and still having to bump up the ISO to get a decent amount of DOF for sunsets and blue hour shots. IS sure woulda been nice there! 

There might be some who like to shoot HDR handheld or exposure blending in which case this could be just the ticket? 

Second curtain sync flash also comes to mind ...


----------



## Act444 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Interesting.

Don't see it being an upgrade path for 16-35 2.8 owners though. Now, perhaps a 14-24 might be something to look at.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Act444 said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Don't see it being an upgrade path for 16-35 2.8 owners though. Now, perhaps a 14-24 might be something to look at.


Maybe we will see a new sigma 12-24 f2.8 art before we see a canon...
Now wouldn't THAT be something


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*


Can someone settle this for me? Is Nikon's 14-24 _so_ desirous because of its *sharpness* or because of its *FL range*? 

If Canon offered _a new 16-35 F/2.8 III that was as sharp as Nikon's 14-24_, would that be enough for you?

OR 

If Canon offered a _new 14-24 F/2.8 that was only as sharp as the current 16-35 F/2.8 II_, would that be enough for you?

Just curious, thanks.

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



mrsfotografie said:


> Like I said in an earlier topic: This may be a dealbreaker for 17-40 F/4 owners who value the added flexibility of the 40mm focal length if the new lens isn't a 17-40 F4 IS.



Even if it delivered a crappy 40-45mm I really wish they had extended it anyway!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Viggo said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



No way, 24-70 f/4 IS is much better at 24mm for sure.


----------



## gerlesion (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Its sad to see it is an L lens. I even don't need constant aperture, just need it to be sharp, filter attachable, and affordable. I wish they make something like 16-35 F4-5.6 IS, more reasonable for me. We mostly shoot at f/8 or even smaller on ultra wide for depth of filed. I dont think people will miss larger apertures. For walk around I prefer to shoot with Samyang 14mm F/2.8. Much smaller, cheaper and optically superior than 16-35 F2/8.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



ahsanford said:


> Can someone settle this for me? Is Nikon's 14-24 _so_ desirous because of its *sharpness* or because of its *FL range*?
> 
> If Canon offered _a new 16-35 F/2.8 III that was as sharp as Nikon's 14-24_, would that be enough for you?
> 
> ...



It should be a poll. ;D

I'd be happy if the 16-35 f/2.8 III is as good as the 24-70 f/2.8 II and still took filters. I'm also ok with using a prime for 14mm.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



gerlesion said:


> Its sad to see it is an L lens. I even don't need constant aperture, just need it to be sharp, filter attachable, and affordable. I wish they make something like 16-35 F4-5.6 IS, more reasonable for me. We mostly shoot at f/8 or even smaller on ultra wide for depth of filed. I dont think people will miss larger apertures. For walk around I prefer to shoot with Samyang 14mm F/2.8. Much smaller, cheaper and optically superior than 16-35 F2/8.



And should Canon have another lens for those who want:
1. Better ergonomics
2. Weather sealing 
3. Constant aperture
??


[First off, I am really not knocking on you, even though I am quoting your post- so please don't take this personally. I am just responding to similar opinions on this thread.]
You have to realize you (or people like you) do not comprise 100% of the market.
At f/8 or narrower apertures, there already is an excellent, economical lens.
You don't "think" people will miss large apertures, and that is similar to majority of comments on these fora- speculations 
But businesses do not run on speculations- you need hard data.
Companies like Canon do market research before spending $$$ on developing a product. 
If they bring out a "f/4" "L " "IS" they know there is a big market for all three attributes.

Same goes for those who "do not need IS", "don't care if it's not f/2.8", "won't buy it if it doesn't go to 40mm", etc.

Me, I wanted a sharp wide angle lens, without coma, fast aperture- so I can take the occasional landscape shots and night sky shots. I bought the Rokinon 14mm. I don't care about a UWA zoom at the moment. A year ago, maybe. A year later, maybe. But you won't hear me say "I do not need an UWA zoom, so I wonder why Canon needs to bring out one".


----------



## teegprice (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*







Also, It looks like its 1,199. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html


----------



## Slyham (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

It's official. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup


----------



## Harry Muff (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

16-35 f4 announced by Canon and going fo[font=tahoma, helvetica, sans-serif]r $1,199.00[/font]


[font=tahoma, helvetica, sans-serif]The 10-18 is $299[/font]


----------



## gerlesion (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



> And should Canon have another lens for those who want:
> 1. Better ergonomics
> 2. Weather sealing
> 3. Constant aperture
> ...



Yeah I totally agree with you that Canon definitely has done some intensive market researches before developing a product. My point is that Canon already offered plenty of UWA L lenses for pro (17-40, 17-35, 16-35, 14mm) but none for amateurs and enthusiasts on budget. I'm "said" because, again, Canon has targeted this lens to pro. The widest economical lens for FF to date is 20mm F2/8, not even qualified for UWA.


----------



## dolina (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?

1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
1996 - EF 135mm f/2L USM
1998 - EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM	
1996 - EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1997 - EF300mm f/4L IS USM
1993 - EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM	
1996 - EF200mm f/2.8L II USM
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The EF 16-35 f/4L IS supplants the 2003 - EF17-40mm f/4L USM.

Where is the EF 14-24mm f/2.8L USM that rivals Nikons or an L version of TS-E45mm f/2.8 & TS-E90mm f/2.8?


----------



## rrcphoto (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



dolina said:


> MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?
> 
> 1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
> 2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
> ...



LOL.. I can answer some of them easily..

1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM	
1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
1993 - EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM	

never.



honestly.. they are there to provide cheaper alternatives or in the case of the 1200 (i'm dying that you even included that on the list .. on two different forums.. ) well .. that's certainly not happening.

these were necessary lenses and a good UWA full frame was certainly necessarily in canon's arsenal. I would much rather have a flat front, 77mm filter 16-35, then a 14-24/2.8 equiv - but that's just me.


----------



## dolina (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

So what's the rationale behind the IS version of the EF17-40mm f/4L USM?

People do buy long super teles. A 1200mm with IS would be welcome to a lot of people.



rrcphoto said:


> LOL.. I can answer some of them easily..
> 
> 1995 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
> 1999 - EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
> ...


----------



## rrcphoto (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



dolina said:


> So what's the rationale behind the IS version of the EF17-40mm f/4L USM?
> 
> People do buy long super teles. A 1200mm with IS would be welcome to a lot of people.



You do realize that was a 38lb lens that cost around $120,000 ... right?

I'm sure the list of people that would welcome it would be close to nil.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

BAM #1 in BH pre-order line for the 16-35!

I'll take this and the 14-24, who says you gotta have one or the other?!


----------



## dolina (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



rrcphoto said:


> You do realize that was a 38lb lens that cost around $120,000 ... right?
> 
> I'm sure the list of people that would welcome it would be close to nil.


20+ years of R&D can significantly lessen the weight and what people can and cannot afford really isnt any of our business.


----------



## Zv (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



dolina said:


> MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?
> 
> 1998 - EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
> 2004 - EF28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
> ...



In one way they already updated the 70-200s on this list when they added IS to them 

The 1200mm was a one off, highly specialized, rare and expensive beast, you can't really put that one on the list since no one is expecting it to be updated. (Are they??)

The 200mm f/2.8 is rarely talked about, I guess they could stick IS in there and improve the optics but then you might as well just buy the excellent 70-200LII. 

I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?


----------



## dolina (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Zv said:


> I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?


I'm angling on a revised 135 & 100-400 or 400/5.6.

Gave up on a 35/1.4 as I love my 40/2.8 pancake and and I just do much macro much.


----------



## mycanonphotos (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

YAAAAAWWWWWWN......


----------



## wickidwombat (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



dolina said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with the rest though. That updated 100-400 was promised to us "after the 200-400 starts shipping in decent numbers." So that was just BS?
> ...


but the 135 will be f2.8 an have IS added... sooooo not much point really since the 70-200 f2.8L IS II exists and you already have one don't you?


----------



## Zv (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



dolina said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that was a 38lb lens that cost around $120,000 ... right?
> ...



So what? Let's say they shave 5 or even 10lbs from it. My guess is you still wont be handholding it and it will still have a front element the same diameter. That size of front element alone requires huge crystals that take about a year to grow! 

Also it would be more economical to stick a 1.4x tele-convertor onto an 800mm super tele instead to give you 1120mm if that's the reach you need.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



teegprice said:


> Also, It looks like its 1,199. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html



Nice! Those are actually better charts than the 24-70 f/4 IS has!

The one thing is WHY did they have to ape Nikon and stop it at 35mm too? The MTF still look great at 35mm so I wonder if they could have allowed it to just keep extending more (which can't hurt image quality at all over 16-35) and get at least 40mm if not 50mm out of it.

Still looks to be awesome, but the 35mm chop is a pain. It would be be nice to get away with it the times you don't want to lug three lenses along. 35mm is sooo borderline. But it is possible.

I guess I will keep my 24-70 II 2.8 and sell the 24-70 f/4 IS and Samyang 14mm (although 14mm is definitely wider than 16mm....) and buy this 16-40 IS, oops darn  I meant 16-35 IS.

But I fail to see why they didn't let it extend out more for 40-45mm (although perhaps it would could some internal sliding elements to strike??).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



gerlesion said:


> > And should Canon have another lens for those who want:
> > 1. Better ergonomics
> > 2. Weather sealing
> > 3. Constant aperture
> ...



samyang 14mm will do it for you


----------



## priyadi (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

no one has mentioned this, but 77mm filter size! yay!

that's a little surprising to me considering 24mm & 24-70mm upgrades increased filter size. now there's a good chance the 16-35/2.8 upgrade will retain 82mm filter size.



Slyham said:


> It's official. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup


----------



## Zv (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



wickidwombat said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



If it was f/2 with IS I would consider it but yeah I don't think it would go down too well if it was f/2.8 and IS. What would even be the point of that unless it was a non L dirt cheap STM plastic mount version.


----------



## dolina (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



wickidwombat said:


> but the 135 will be f2.8 an have IS added... sooooo not much point really since the 70-200 f2.8L IS II exists and you already have one don't you?


I was thinking of the legacy 135/2.0 towards a 135/1.8 IS or 135/2.0 IS not the 135/2.8 Soft Focus.

Sony has a 135/1.8. Although the focus motor is prehistoric the optics are pretty good at 1.8.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

The only reason the 1200 was built, actually there are two reasons. The first was the '84 LA Olympics, it was pre EOS so they were FD 1200's with a 1.4 TC built in, just like the 30 year later "innovative" 200-400 f4.

The FD 1200's were never sold though, they were always Canon property. In the late '80's Canon and Nikon got in an arms race and the genesis of that was Japanese baseball and the Koshien Stadium. Nikon ended up coming out with a manual focus 1200-1700 zoom, and it was thought that was partly because of the various patents Canon took out on the FD 1200's internal TC. Every one of the FD1200's went back to Japan and was rebodied into an EF 1200, it lost the TC in the move too.

There is an excellent article floating around about one of the Nikon 1200-1700 shooters at the Koshien Stadium.

Unless Nikon start another arms race, which has zero probability into the modern camera makers financial climate, we won't see anything over the 800mm come out, indeed it has taken Nikon a long time to bring a rival to the table for the under performing EF800 anyway.

As for half the other lenses, the 135 will never get an update, it is a sterling lens but what does it need that the beancounters wouldn't say the 70-200 f2.8 IS can do better (other than the obvious f2 in which case you already have it). Ditto the 200 f2.8, and the 70-200 2.8 L, they don't even give you a faster aperture.

The 28-300, who cares? It was a big improvement on its predecessor, the 35-350, but superzooms are really not what the L's are about, paparazzi don't care for corner sharpness, and news/event shooters don't care about resolution.

70-200 f4, bargain entry into L's, no movement for a price rise in that one.

Some of the others, the 14-24 f2.8, the 45 and 90 TS-E's I am looking forwards to.


----------



## dolina (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

^^ the same was said about the 17-40/4 not getting an IS version over the past 5 years and yet an IS version was just announced less than 3 hours ago.

Never say never, if there's demand the company will make it.

It is only a question of, when...


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Great re-16-35 IS! 

I bought a 17-40 in December for a great price... I don't use it that much here, but maybe in a couple of years i'll upgrade!  New lenses are always good.... The 10-18 too.... nice price too!


----------



## expatinasia (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

US$ 1,199.00 for the new 16-35 is pretty reasonable. I just wish it was f/2.8. If they make a new f/2.8 version with improvements over the old lens, I will snap one up.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Zv said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > MTF looks nice but when will they update these older L lenses?
> ...



I think the 28-300L isn't going to be replaced. 
Why do you think the 300 f4IS needs replacing?

I also don't see the 35L being replaced soon. Later it will have amazing IQ, nine curved blades, weather sealing, and cost north of $ 2k.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



gerlesion said:


> > And should Canon have another lens for those who want:
> > 1. Better ergonomics
> > 2. Weather sealing
> > 3. Constant aperture
> ...



Well, the 17-40L is pretty cheap for a pro lens at ~550 used.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



priyadi said:


> no one has mentioned this, but 77mm filter size! yay!
> 
> that's a little surprising to me considering 24mm & 24-70mm upgrades increased filter size. now there's a good chance the 16-35/2.8 upgrade will retain 82mm filter size.
> 
> ...



Those are faster lenses. I'd be surprised if they release an f/4 with 82mm filters.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



privatebydesign said:


> The only reason the 1200 was built, actually there are two reasons. The first was the '84 LA Olympics, it was pre EOS so they were FD 1200's with a 1.4 TC built in, just like the 30 year later "innovative" 200-400 f4.
> 
> The FD 1200's were never sold though, they were always Canon property. In the late '80's Canon and Nikon got in an arms race and the genesis of that was Japanese baseball and the Koshien Stadium. Nikon ended up coming out with a manual focus 1200-1700 zoom, and it was thought that was partly because of the various patents Canon took out on the FD 1200's internal TC. Every one of the FD1200's went back to Japan and was rebodied into an EF 1200, it lost the TC in the move too.
> 
> ...



yeah I doubt a 1200mm, at least not unless it is some new type of lens, DO at the least

the 135mm I'd bet WILL get updated though


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason the 1200 was built, actually there are two reasons. The first was the '84 LA Olympics, it was pre EOS so they were FD 1200's with a 1.4 TC built in, just like the 30 year later "innovative" 200-400 f4.
> ...




I'd much rather prefer an 85 f/2 IS.
Or any 85 without CA sharp wide open and not costing an arm and a leg.


----------



## trstromme (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

interesting..
as a 7D shooter they are both appealing to me, price isn't bad either. 
I'm not complaining, I will get the 10-18 just because of the price for landscapes, the 16-35 as a standard zoom. I more am thinking about the reasoning for the introduction now..
Are these possible kit lenses? Is Canon interested in getting these out of the way for an introduction of one or two new APS-c cameras later (7dmkII and/or an addition to the xxx or xxxx series?)
The 16-35 is too wide for a FF kit, but for a 7D mkII it'd be perfect in my opinion. WA to normal focal length.
the 10-18 could easily be packed with a 18-55 into a dual lens uwa to short tele kit. (or tack on a 55-250 STM you'd have a complete kit that might be interesting to people with video aspirations, stabilized; from UWA to a decent telephoto, silent AF all the way..
Also on my mind, reading this and other sites have been the murmuring of significantly enhanced video features of a 7DmkII, the 10-18 would complement these rumors.)
(I don't care much for the video features though, but others do..)

my shots on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/trondstromme/


----------



## SoullessPolack (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> yeah I doubt a 1200mm, at least not unless it is some new type of lens, DO at the least
> 
> the 135mm I'd bet WILL get updated though



So, what reasons do you have that you assumed the 135mm will get updated?


----------



## trstromme (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



SoullessPolack said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > yeah I doubt a 1200mm, at least not unless it is some new type of lens, DO at the least
> ...


I'd say the 135 is a staple lens, one aimed squarely (but not solely) on portraiture, thus a key lens appealing to a wide audience of professionals and advanced amateurs.

My shots on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/trondstromme/


----------



## Zv (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



sagittariansrock said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



I don't think the 300 f/4 needs replaced right now I was just eliminating the ones that probably won't ever be replaced. Maybe at some point in the future we'll see a refresh to the 35 1.4 too. I don't know much about the 28-300L but you're probably right about that one. 

So that long list is really just down to the 100-400, 180 macro and 400 5.6 replacements that are overdue then.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

This is good news and pricing ($1199 for L & $299 for EF-S version) is excellent ... I'm guessing the competitive pricing had a lot to do with the recent third party lenses that are being sold/announced at very affordable prices. Good times!


----------



## squarebox (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Wow... I really don't get Canon's pricing, especially at today's exchange rates.

The EF 16-35L F4 is $1550 USD here in Japan
and the EF-S is $460

America will remain the cheapest place to get lenses.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



candyman said:


> I am very curious about the quality of the 16-35 f/4 IS.
> Can't wait for the reviews...
> 
> EDIT: interesting to see the design matching the 24-70 II
> Maybe the new Canon L line?



With their lens casings, Canon has always developed a design language / look which generally lasts for a few years. This is more obvious with the black plastic USM lenses. If you look back at previous designs, it was quite easy to see the generation a lens belonged to by it's look. The most typical was the design of the rubber rings. 

I think the newer blacked out AF window surround has been around for a while now, lens detail and font location has been around since the ef-s 15-85. The general look of the lens are the new look for mid sized L lenses although a lot of it's deign language can bee seen in the 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro.


----------



## lw (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



squarebox said:


> Wow... I really don't get Canon's pricing, especially at today's exchange rates.
> 
> The EF 16-35L F4 is $1550 USD here in Japan
> and the EF-S is $460
> ...



Same for UK - pounds for dollars - with the UK price £1199 and £299, whilst the exchange rate is 1.6x
That isn't unusual with manufacturers coming up with all manner of excuses - some valid - as to why they cost more in the UK and EU than the US or Asia.

But then you compare the launch prices of the white SL1/100D also announced today for the US. $749 in the US, but only £499 in the UK.


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



lw said:


> squarebox said:
> 
> 
> > Wow... I really don't get Canon's pricing, especially at today's exchange rates.
> ...



In Sweden the new 16-35/4L IS is introduced at 10390 SEK, that is $1504.75...


----------



## lw (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



nicke said:


> In Sweden the new 16-35/4L IS is introduced at 10390 SEK, that is $1504.75...



$2000 in the UK at today's exchange rate...


----------



## candyman (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



lw said:


> nicke said:
> 
> 
> > In Sweden the new 16-35/4L IS is introduced at 10390 SEK, that is $1504.75...
> ...




Seen in the Netherlands for €1099 - May 13th 2014 - with todays currency rate : $1507,66


----------



## Zv (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



squarebox said:


> Wow... I really don't get Canon's pricing, especially at today's exchange rates.
> 
> The EF 16-35L F4 is $1550 USD here in Japan
> and the EF-S is $460
> ...



Don't worry that price should come down after the initial pre-orders are fulfilled. The 16-35 is on amazon.jp for ¥149,688 right now with the 10-18 for ¥42,228. 

Though I agree that it's total BS that it's frickin made here and it costs more than it does to buy it in the U.S!


----------



## dolina (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Price will drop to below $1000 within 6 months.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Zv said:


> squarebox said:
> 
> 
> > Wow... I really don't get Canon's pricing, especially at today's exchange rates.
> ...



Think iPhones and China.


----------



## 100 (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

If you want to compare prices you need to value in customs duties and taxes. 

I live in the Netherlands. 
For non-EU imports we have to pay customs duties.
Cameras and lenses are 6.7%
On top of that there is the value-added tax (VAT or BTW in Dutch) which is 21%.

The USD – Euro exchange rate today is about 0.73 so $ 1,000 is € 730 
€ 730 + 6.7% customs duties = € 779
€ 779 + 21% VAT = € 942

American prices are without tax, so if you want compare these with Dutch prices you need to multiply the USD price by 0.942 => € 1,199*0.942 = € 1,129 which is pretty close to the € 1,099 price tag. 
The customs duties in my calculation are based on the retail price, so in reality they will be less because it will be based on what the retailer is paying and not the price you pay in the shop. 

If people want to compare prices they need to figure out if they have to pay customs duties and taxes and how high they are for the country they live in.


----------



## lw (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



100 said:


> If people want to compare prices they need to figure out if they have to pay customs duties and taxes and how high they are for the country they live in.



Very true.

In the UK, they have set the launch price of the 16-35L at £1199 GBP.
At today's exchange rate that is $2026 USD.
Whereas the US price, plus import duty and VAT is £909 (at today's exchange rate)
So in the UK we are paying approx one third more for this lens. I call that a rip off.

Interestingly, the white SL1/100D was launched in the US on the same day.
In the UK they set the launch price at £499 GBP
At today's exchange rate that is $843 USD
Whereas in the US they set the launch price at $749 USD
By the time you add import duty (which is 0% on cameras) and VAT that comes to £532 GBP.
So in that case the UK is actually cheaper!
With


----------



## pato (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Here in Switzerlands the EF 16-35 f/4L is available for a sweet 1068 SFr. That's currently spot on 1200 USD.


----------



## 100 (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



lw said:


> In the UK, they have set the launch price of the 16-35L at £1199 GBP.
> At today's exchange rate that is $2026 USD.
> Whereas the US price, plus import duty and VAT is £909 (at today's exchange rate)
> So in the UK we are paying approx one third more for this lens. I call that a rip off.



It is a rip off if you have to pay that much more. 
Does anyone know what causes these big price differences?


----------



## pato (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Forgot to mention something. It's not yet stock, so the price might go a bit further down once it is. I think this might also apply to your countries!


----------



## Skirball (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



chromophore said:


> These new lenses will be overpriced (the L being at least $2100, I guarantee it), and will still under-perform even though it will be a little better in the corner sharpness over its predecessors.



I think that pretty much sums up the majority of rumor discussions on this site.


----------



## stereopat (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)

yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



stereopat said:


> with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)
> 
> yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle



[hand to face] I believe the end of your statement was missing the phrase "...for what I shoot." Tons of people want IS on wide angles. 

I am formally nominating "IS or no IS on Wide Angles" to the CR Forum's _We Are Never Going To Agree On This _Hall of Fame.

It's right up there with: 


The decision to use / not use UV filters
Any debate about dynamic range
IQ of a 1.6x cropped FF image versus a full APS-C image

In that there are two camps that will never agree with each other. 

- A


----------



## Skirball (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



ahsanford said:


> I am formally nominating "IS or no IS on Wide Angles" to the CR Forum's _We Are Never Going To Agree On This _Hall of Fame.



I don't know if there's ever been a single thing of substance that the people of CR have agreed on. Hell, we could discuss why the sky is blue and it'd digress into arguments of Pantone colors, monitor calibration and why anybody would ever shoot jpg.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Skirball said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I am formally nominating "IS or no IS on Wide Angles" to the CR Forum's _We Are Never Going To Agree On This _Hall of Fame.
> ...



Not to mention if a cpl was used and if it was used on an Uwa 
But I agree I laugh so hard when I read the bs of IS is useless on an Uwa
So funny....


----------



## Azathoth (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



stereopat said:


> yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle



Useless, why is that? How about the ability to shoot with a lower speed handheld? Want a real word scenario? You are a turist and you are visiting the Palace of Versailles near Paris. You'll need a very wide lens because the space is limited. And you can't use a tripod because there are lots of people and you need to take the pictures quickly. With IS, you can use a lower speed, this means you can use a lower iso, so you'll get less noise.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



ahsanford said:


> stereopat said:
> 
> 
> > with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)
> ...




I think people develop tunnel vision from years of staring through the viewfinder.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



stereopat said:


> with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)
> 
> yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle



I can bet that there will be tons more that purchase the much smaller and much lighter 10-18 and cheaper. perhaps you fail to grasp the market in which it's targeting.


----------



## Zv (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



stereopat said:


> with that tag price of 300 usd.. i'd rather spend a little more and get the tokina 11-16 ( $420)
> 
> yeah i know the 10-18 comes with IS.. but still, useless for a wide angle



I love this logic - so you want to pay MORE money for LESS range, a bulkier and heavier lens without IS (which is apparently useless anyway)? 

Yeah, I mean like who would ever buy a wide angle lens with IS? Deja-vu ... Didn't we do this when the 24mm f/2.8 IS and 28mm f/2.8 IS were announced? Remind me what 18mm is on a crop? :

They scoffed at the notion then but it seems to be selling quite well so it can't be all that useless, can it? 

Oh .... and hands up who here would love to have the little EF-M 11-22mm lens? On many peoples wish list, and why is that? Super small compact UWA lens with IS? Oh yes please! ;D


----------



## hemidesign (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

16-35 f4 IS?.. this lens IMO is useless.. WTF!!!

and who uses IS on wide angle lens?.. where's the 14-24 2.8?... we need something good, not stupid!


----------



## tron (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



hemidesign said:


> 16-35 f4 IS?.. this lens IMO is useless.. WTF!!!
> 
> and who uses IS on wide angle lens?.. where's the 14-24 2.8?... we need something good, not stupid!


16-35 f4 IS is not stupid! I would like a 2.8 version but that does not mean that the specific lens is not
useful. In fact if it sharp up to the corners then it is the ideal landscape zoom (small, sharp, taking filters)...


----------



## Jack56 (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

Is there any "evidence" that this will be a lens that's sharp up to the corners?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



chromophore said:


> Notice how these new lenses are SUPER SLOW? The lie we're being sold is that IS makes up for the 1-stop loss. I predicted this trend years ago--that Canon's lens development will go in the direction of slower-aperture, IS designs that are more profitable because they don't need tighter tolerances or more expensive optical designs, but the price tag is "justified" because, oh, wait, it's got IS, as if that will totally make up for the slowness.
> 
> I'm frankly sick of this. Especially in light of how even a company like Sigma can make a sub $1000 50/1.4 lens that beats the pants off of anything Canon or Nikon has *ever* made at that focal length, and has people comparing it to a $3500 MF lens from Zeiss.
> 
> These new lenses will be overpriced (the L being at least $2100, I guarantee it), and will still under-perform even though it will be a little better in the corner sharpness over its predecessors. At such short focal lengths, almost any IS advantage is nullified by the fact that unless you're shooting something that's completely stationary, the shutter speeds at which IS would be relevant would result in subject motion blur.



It's dangerous to make predictions man! You are off on a quite a few here. We now know the price - $1199. And we do have a CR2 letting us know that a 2.8 UWA is on the way.

Now as to all lenses being slow? This one is pretty false, Canon is filling gaps in it's lineup, and yeah that does include a few slower lenses with IS - why, mostly to satiate the video folks out there (and yes, some still shooters want it) - and - it fills a few more price points too. Those on a budget now have a trinity of f4, this doesn't eliminate the 2.8 trinity by any means (the 70-200 2.8v2 is still fairly new, and the 24-70 2.8v2 is very new - so now the question mark is will the 16-35 get it's v3 or will it become a 14-24?) 

The part you are right on is your $2100 figure, but it's for the wrong lens. The new UWA 2.8 will probably be at around $2100, like the other new 2.8's....

As to sigma - apples and oranges. Sigma mostly specializes in lenses, they don't have anywhere near the overhead as canon does - or nikon for that matter. Also, while the ART series is the start of a change for sigma from cheap low quality glass to moderately priced better IQ glass, they still have issues, mainly in their AF systems. Reading through the forums I see lots of mixed messages about the 35 and the 50 ---they beat the pants off the canon offerings when the AF hits, but AF consistency is a big issue that sigma needs to fix.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



also, gotta point out the obvious...better IQ and sharper images give you way more room to crop - which potentially means you could crop that long end shot from the new lens to a 70mm FOV and still get better IQ that you would have at 40mm on the 17-40...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



dolina said:


> People do buy long super teles. A 1200mm with IS would be welcome to a lot of people.



while a 1200mm IS would be welcome by many, like me, I'd welcome it but would never ever ever buy such a thing. who here could afford such a thing? Hell, I wouldn't even be able to cover the 3 day rental cost on such a thing....


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



dolina said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that was a 38lb lens that cost around $120,000 ... right?
> ...



yes, it could lessen the weight, and yeah, ok, take the price down a notch or 2...so maybe they could make one now for a retail of $80,000... eho can afford such a lens????

And what people can and can't afford may not be our business - it certainly is canon's...why wouldthey devote time, money, resources into making a thing no one would buy because the price tag is outrageous and it's use is very very very much niche....


----------



## scyrene (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



hemidesign said:


> 16-35 f4 IS?.. this lens IMO is useless.. WTF!!!
> 
> and who uses IS on wide angle lens?.. where's the 14-24 2.8?... we need something good, not stupid!



I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.


----------



## Ruined (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



scyrene said:


> I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.



Theoretically, IS should help in those situations. But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that. In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds. IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas. I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.


----------



## Zv (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Ruined said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.
> ...



I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?


----------



## Ruined (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Zv said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Theoretically, IS should help in those situations. But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.
> ...



What image-stabilized wide angle Canon do you have experience with?

There is nothing wrong with the IS system, I use it for panning shots all the time.

I tested from 1/30 all the way down and in between to 1/2, as Canon claims the IS system had the equivalent of 4 stops stabilization - which would be around 1/2 for a 35mm. The bottom line was the the IS system was unreliable at 1/15, 1/8, and especially below that while the pics were usable, they were definitely blurry compared to a monopod and not much different than with IS disabled assuming halfway decent technique. This is different than with the 70-200 where the IS truly works as many stops as advertised.

I also noticed the same behavior with the 28mm IS when I had it, the IS simply is not as effective at very slow shutter speeds.


----------



## Zv (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Ruined said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Yeah I agree that the stabilization effect is more noticeable with a 70-200 than with the wider focal lengths but with my 17-55 @ 17mm I was getting fairly sharp useable shots at 1/8th and that has an older version of IS. The 24-105 has pretty decent IS too. Even the old 18-55 kit lens did alright. 

What I find is that while IS cannot truly replace a tripod or monopod it does reduce the amount of camera shake to the point where it is at least acceptable for web use. The shake is still there and likely most of it from the mirror which makes me wonder actually ... I know the 70-200 IS has an anti mirror slap vibration function, maybe the 35 doesn't have that so there is a limit to how effective it can be?


----------



## Ruined (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Zv said:


> Yeah I agree that the stabilization effect is more noticeable with a 70-200 than with the wider focal lengths but with my 17-55 @ 17mm I was getting fairly sharp useable shots at 1/8th and that has an older version of IS. The 24-105 has pretty decent IS too. Even the old 18-55 kit lens did alright.
> 
> What I find is that while IS cannot truly replace a tripod or monopod it does reduce the amount of camera shake to the point where it is at least acceptable for web use. The shake is still there and likely most of it from the mirror which makes me wonder actually ... I know the 70-200 IS has an anti mirror slap vibration function, maybe the 35 doesn't have that so there is a limit to how effective it can be?



Also, it may be a personal thing based on how you use it. I do agree that I was able to get usable 1/8 shots with the 35mm IS, but the issue for me is that they were not significantly more usable than when I just shot with IS disabled. It wasn't like one was razor sharp and the other was terrible, generally I found both were usable but not super sharp. Again, unlike the 70-200 which can be super sharp several stops down.

I thought IS was making a big difference with the 35 IS and slower shutter speeds until I turned it off and shot slower shutter speeds quite a bit without it, then I found the difference was not really significant unlike the 70-200. This of course was real world shooting and not myself trying to purposely induce shake into the shot to see the performance of IS. There was a big difference with a monopod, tripod, of course.

I am not sure the reason why for this, but the 35 IS is supposed to have the same advanced IS system the 100L does - which was supposed to be more advanced than the one in the 70-200. So, my guess is that Canon's IS system can only do so much when the shutter speeds get really slow, even if it is only 2 stops down... Which does sort of make sense if you think about the way optical IS works.

However, I do frequently use the IS in the 35mm to do panning shots. It assists in keeping the vertical axis stable and I have gotten some really cool and crisp panning shots in doing so. The 35 f/2 IS USM is my go-to panning lens due to the IS and flexible wide-normal focal length, I will pick it over the 24L, 50L, 16-35L II, 24-70L II, etc... I don't shoot video really so that part is less useful to me.

It is of course possible Canon will improve up on the system for the 16-35 f/4L IS - we will see. Personally I won't be able to test this lens though, as the 16-35 II is a better fit for what I shoot.


----------



## scyrene (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

*Well* there's probably something in this. I guess in really long exposures you start getting bigger movements, drift rather than wobble, if you see what I mean. That's probably harder to account for, so maybe the wider the angle of view, the less effective IS is (but then, the wider the angle, the less apparent any movement is in general). It's also worth noting that "4 stop IS" doesn't really mean "you'll always get clean shots 4 stops slower" but that the percentages are better. When you see IS reviewed (in places like dpreview and The Digital Picture), they do it in clean shots out of ten, or as a percentage, say. Some shots will still be motion blurred. I always take bursts of shots - two or three at least - of anything, at any focal length, with IS or not, just in case. I've never tested my IS lenses, but I suspect they are bending the odds in my favour (I do notice a lot more motion blurred shots on my non-IS lenses though, like the 85 1.2L, but that's entirely anecdotal).


----------



## Ruined (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



scyrene said:


> *Well* there's probably something in this. I guess in really long exposures you start getting bigger movements, drift rather than wobble, if you see what I mean.



Yes, I believe something like this is occurring.



> That's probably harder to account for, so maybe the wider the angle of view, the less effective IS is (but then, the wider the angle, the less apparent any movement is in general). It's also worth noting that "4 stop IS" doesn't really mean "you'll always get clean shots 4 stops slower" but that the percentages are better. When you see IS reviewed (in places like dpreview and The Digital Picture), they do it in clean shots out of ten, or as a percentage, say. Some shots will still be motion blurred.



This is true, but the longer focal length lenses seem to live up a lot more to the marketing in # of stops IS provides than the wider ones do. To me it seems, in addition to IS being less necessary for wide angle, it is also less effective. 




> I always take bursts of shots - two or three at least - of anything, at any focal length, with IS or not,



I do this also, not just for sharpness but also if taking people shots I will get more pleasing expression one frame than the other two.



> just in case. I've never tested my IS lenses, but I suspect they are bending the odds in my favour (I do notice a lot more motion blurred shots on my non-IS lenses though, like the 85 1.2L, but that's entirely anecdotal).



I generally like to set my shutter speed to 1/100-1/125 in most cases as events is my specialty. This makes 85mm about as high as I will go without image stabilization (wouldn't regularly use the 135L for this reason). Everything I own higher than 85mm is image stabilized, but almost all of my lenses are non-stabilized at 85mm and under. I do like to keep the 35mm f/2 IS, though, as its light weight, flexible focal length, small size and IS makes it perfect for panning shots. It is also a good city lens, regardless of IS, and I personally feel that at any aperture narrower than f/2 the 35 IS has better bokeh than the 35L.

85L generally does not give camera shake problems if you set shutter speed to 1/125, at least this seems to be the case. What you will get if you are shooting at f/1.2 though is blur due to moving focal plane. The depth of field is so thin that leaning the camera just a tiny bit forward or back before shooting can result in blur through missed focus. It is really a challenging lens to use, though I like the results both it and the 50L give best out of all the the Canon lenses - they seem to be lenses you use when you want to get an incredible shot, but have the time to potentially miss a couple of shots in obtaining it.


----------



## scyrene (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Ruined said:


> This is true, but the longer focal length lenses seem to live up a lot more to the marketing in # of stops IS provides than the wider ones do. To me it seems, in addition to IS being less necessary for wide angle, it is also less effective.



Oh absolutely. I've got the odd clean shot at 1/15 with my 500mm lens  But I suspect the super-telephoto lenses contain the best IS systems so far.



Ruined said:


> > just in case. I've never tested my IS lenses, but I suspect they are bending the odds in my favour (I do notice a lot more motion blurred shots on my non-IS lenses though, like the 85 1.2L, but that's entirely anecdotal).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, I would say the 85L needs 1/100-1/200 to be certain. And it's a big heavy lump, so maybe that's working against stability (though some say weight helps). It's not *my* favourite, but I don't do all that much portrait work. It's a great lens anyhow


----------



## Ruined (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*

The 85L puts out some of the most beautiful pictures of any lens I've seen.

For indoor events, though, if I am going to use two primes it will generally be 24L II and 50L, as it is rare I have enough space to use 85mm focal length. In less chaotic situations with more working room the 85L is the go-to lens, however. Although I am sure there will be arguments for the pricey 200mm f/2L IS instead 

This 16-35 range is great for events too, though again using primarily indoors I need f/2.8 for cleaner shots in low light, so this particular 16-35 f/4 IS lens would not be for me. Landscape photogs will have a blast with it though.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 19, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



Ruined said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.
> ...


You must need to work on your abilities then as I have no problem with 1/5 sec or even 1/2 sec on my eos m and 11-22....


----------



## Ruined (May 19, 2014)

*Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM*



wickidwombat said:


> You must need to work on your abilities then as I have no problem with 1/5 sec or even 1/2 sec on my eos m and 11-22....



Ironic you state I need to work on my abilities when you are attempting to argue in favor of Image Stabilization making a big difference in an ultrawide angle lens. Image stabilization helps a photographer's camera shake, recall


----------

