# Canon Announces EF 16-35 f/2.8L III & EF 24-105 f/4L IS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 25, 2016)

```
<strong>From the 5D Mark IV Press Release:</strong>

In addition to the new EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR, Canon is also introducing two EF-Series L-series lenses as well as a variety of EOS accessories. The new EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens features a large diameter GMO dual surface aspherical lens and ground aspherical lens, f/2.8 aperture throughout the entire zoom range, fluorine coating, improved durability and is dust and water resistant. The new EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Standard Zoom lens features an improved four-stop image stabilization as well as ghosting and flare reduction with air sphere coating. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens is scheduled to be available late in October for an estimated retail price of $2,199.00 and the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM  Standard Zoom Lens is scheduled to be available in late October for an estimated retail price of $1,099.00.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>Preorder Links Below</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

</strong><em>Shipping in late October, 2016</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>USA </strong><em>$2199</em><strong>:</strong> <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274708-REG/canon_ef_16_35mm_f_2_8l_iii.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2bPL0jq">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA16353.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/2bkKGfQ">Canon Store</a> | <a href="http://mpex.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f-2-8l-iii-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></li>
<li><strong>UK </strong><em>£2349</em><strong>:</strong> <a href="http://tidd.ly/97c26534">Park Cameras</a> | <strong>Germany:</strong> Calumet</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

</strong><em>Shipping in late October, 2016</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>USA </strong><em>$1099</em><strong>:</strong> <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274709-REG/canon_ef_24_105mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2bpjIRq">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA241052.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/2bIZnYi">Canon Store</a> | <a href="http://mpex.com/canon-ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-ii-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></li>
<li><strong>UK </strong><em>£1129</em><strong>:</strong> <a href="http://tidd.ly/c633e78d">Park Cameras</a> | <strong>Germany:</strong> Calumet</li>
</ul>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-26584 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0244093010.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0244093010-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="0244093010" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0244093010-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0244093010-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0412440779.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0412440779-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="0412440779" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0412440779-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0412440779-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/6371972109.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/6371972109-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="6371972109" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/6371972109-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/6371972109-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/8993703593.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/8993703593-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="8993703593" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/8993703593-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/8993703593-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 25, 2016)

More and more, I'd really like to have that 16-35. I'm guessing it's awesome optically.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2016)

MTF'S!!

16-35 II







16-35 III






16-35/4


----------



## candyman (Aug 25, 2016)

According to the specs given at DPreview the Canon 24-105L II does not have a zoom lock. I hope they fixed the zoom creep. In the 100-400II they added a nice feature for that


----------



## davidj (Aug 25, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> MTF'S!!



Am I right in saying that the new 16-35 looks great, far better than the old f2.8, and should be about as good as the f4 when wide open, and maybe slightly better at f8?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2016)

davidj said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > MTF'S!!
> ...



yes!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2016)

24-105L (original)






24-105L II




24-70L 4.0 L IS





looks like the 24-105L II is in the same league as the 24-70/4LIS

not bad.


----------



## d (Aug 25, 2016)

Anyone found any samples from the new 16-35 2.8 yet?


----------



## midluk (Aug 25, 2016)

Seems like they are using a missing water and dust resistance on the 24-105 f/4 L IS II as a differentiator to the 24-70 f/4 L IS


----------



## EOS-1DX Mark II (Aug 25, 2016)

candyman said:


> According to the specs given at DPreview the Canon 24-105L II does not have a zoom lock. I hope they fixed the zoom creep. In the 100-400II they added a nice feature for that



That's not correct. 

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef24-105-ii/index.html


----------



## nightscape123 (Aug 25, 2016)

That's a pretty massive improvement on the 16-35 III. It looks just as good if not better than the 16-35 f/4 except at f/2.8. Should be a killer lens, will have to wait and see the coma, though a little expensive compared to the competition. 

The 24-105 is a little bit of a let down. It really doesn't look that much better. Maybe a little bit in the corners, but that's it. Though I want to see some sample images of the bokeh, star burst and flare since the original lacked in those areas.


----------



## candyman (Aug 25, 2016)

EOS-1DX Mark II said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > According to the specs given at DPreview the Canon 24-105L II does not have a zoom lock. I hope they fixed the zoom creep. In the 100-400II they added a nice feature for that
> ...




Ok!
Good news, nice that the lock is added
DPreview reported wrong.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 25, 2016)

nightscape123 said:


> That's a pretty massive improvement on the 16-35 III. It looks just as good if not better than the 16-35 f/4 except at f/2.8. Should be a killer lens, will have to wait and see the coma, though a little expensive compared to the competition.
> 
> The 24-105 is a little bit of a let down. It really doesn't look that much better. Maybe a little bit in the corners, but that's it. Though I want to see some sample images of the bokeh, star burst and flare since the original lacked in those areas.


+1
Waiting for lens tip to test the 16-35. The 24-105 sharpness not much improved, but the press release is saying less vignetting than previous version.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2016)

candyman said:


> DPreview reported wrong.



Wait...what? I'm shocked, simply shocked.


----------



## candyman (Aug 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > DPreview reported wrong.
> ...


 ;D I should have known


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 25, 2016)

Prior to pricing being announced, I was hopeful that this new 16-35 might drive down the street price of used f/4 variants. Hopeful that a number of f/4 owners ditch that lens to get the latest/greatest. However, I'm figuring the $2200 price tag just puts these two lenses in clearly different markets.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2016)

mackguyver said:


> I just found the MTF curves on the Singapore site:



I found them a while ago...on the first page of this thread.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I just found the MTF curves on the Singapore site:
> ...


Arghh - still waking up - didn't even see it. I deleted my duplicate post...


----------



## j-nord (Aug 25, 2016)

That 16-35 improvement looks impressive! Now I wait for coma testing as that will determine whether the f2.8 or the f4 will be my next UWA lens. I suspect the coma will be 'good enough' for me and it will be a matter of how long do I have to wait until I can afford it


----------



## LordofTackle (Aug 25, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> Prior to pricing being announced, I was hopeful that this new 16-35 might drive down the street price of used f/4 variants. Hopeful that a number of f/4 owners ditch that lens to get the latest/greatest. However, I'm figuring the $2200 price tag just puts these two lenses in clearly different markets.



2200$?? You lucky guys over there....

It will cost 2625€ in Germany... (close to 3000$!)

I guess the replacement of my old Mark II will have to wait a bit..


----------



## tron (Aug 25, 2016)

j-nord said:


> That 16-35 improvement looks impressive! Now I wait for coma testing as that will determine whether the f2.8 or the f4 will be my next UWA lens. I suspect the coma will be 'good enough' for me and it will be a matter of how long do I have to wait until I can afford it


I am interested in coma too. I do have 16-35 f/4 L IS. It is excellent. Super sharp, IS, low coma. Only I cannot enjoy low coma a lot since it is f/4 and I use my 14 2.8L II for landscape astrophotography. It has some coma but it is not terrible. Canon showed us that they can deal with coma in 24-70 2.8 II and 16-35 f/4L IS so I expect this lens to not disappoint. My dilemma will be that I cannot sell my f/4 since its IS makes it invaluable in museums (and my 14 is small and fits everywhere). Choices, choices...


----------



## e_honda (Aug 25, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> Prior to pricing being announced, I was hopeful that this new 16-35 might drive down the street price of used f/4 variants. Hopeful that a number of f/4 owners ditch that lens to get the latest/greatest. However, I'm figuring the $2200 price tag just puts these two lenses in clearly different markets.



Most figured this would be the price. Recall that the 70-200 f2.8 II basically costs twice as much as its f4 counterpart. So this is no surprise. The street price of the 16-35 f/4 is already very reasonable as it is.


----------



## kaffikopp (Aug 25, 2016)

Here's the japanese product page for the 16-35 III, in case it hasn't been posted yet: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef16-35-iii/index.html

There's a coma comparison between this lens and the mk II version a bit down the page. Looks pretty good to me! This will definitely be my next lens purchase, although I won't be able to afford it for some time, particularly considering the price will be equivalent of almost 3200 USD here...


----------



## nightscape123 (Aug 25, 2016)

kaffikopp said:


> Here's the japanese product page for the 16-35 III, in case it hasn't been posted yet: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef16-35-iii/index.html
> 
> There's a coma comparison between this lens and the mk II version a bit down the page. Looks pretty good to me! This will definitely be my next lens purchase, although I won't be able to afford it for some time, particularly considering the price will be equivalent of almost 3200 USD here...



Wow the improvement in that corner shot is massive. The starburst improvement is also significant. I need to get on a computer so I can read that in English but so far so good. I saw a milkyway shot but no crops... I'm in my phone though so I may have just missed it.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 25, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> 24-105L (original)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looks like decent improvement over the version I. The 24mm performance being very close to the 24-70 f/4L IS is a good thing since I tend to use standard zooms quite a bit at the wide end.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 25, 2016)

16-35 iii looks like a good sharpness improvement, but still falling slightly behind the Tamron 15-30 VC. 

Look on the specs tab...
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1530_vcusd.php#ad-image-0
... and compare f/2.8 lines.

Couldn't justify spending 2x as much for a lens that's nots as sharp (although that difference is likely to be unnoticeable) and doesn't have IS. Perhaps there's some special "rendering" factor that'll come out in real world images, but I'm slightly disappointed. And I suspect many of those "rendering" benefits comes from the effects on the brain from having spent northward of $2k on a lens. 

As to the 24-105, that's just disappointing.


----------



## e_honda (Aug 25, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> 16-35 iii looks like a good sharpness improvement, but still falling slightly behind the Tamron 15-30 VC.
> 
> Look on the specs tab...
> http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1530_vcusd.php#ad-image-0
> ...



Not that I'll be buying this (happy with my 16-35 f/4) but the Canon III will be smaller, lighter and less cumbersome to carry around than the Tamron and will also be able to take on front filters.

The 24-105 not being a huge jump in optical quality is pretty much expected. Recall the new 50mm f1.8 STM not being much of an improvement in sharpness to the 50mm f1.8 II. It just had better build quality and handling. Also the jump in retail price isn't huge. 

And really, you shouldn't expect Canon to make a relatively low priced kit lens too awesome, for it'd give less reason for people to spend the extra on the "premium" lenses.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 25, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> 16-35 iii looks like a good sharpness improvement, but still falling slightly behind the Tamron 15-30 VC.
> 
> Look on the specs tab...
> http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1530_vcusd.php#ad-image-0
> ...



You'll have to wait for reviewer comparisons (like TDP or LensRentals). Companies do not calculate MTFs the same way so comparing between different company data is difficult.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 25, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > 16-35 iii looks like a good sharpness improvement, but still falling slightly behind the Tamron 15-30 VC.
> ...



A project for Roger at Lens Rentals me thinks! October must come, can't wait for TDP's review either


----------



## d (Aug 25, 2016)

kaffikopp said:


> Here's the japanese product page for the 16-35 III, in case it hasn't been posted yet: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef16-35-iii/index.html
> 
> There's a coma comparison between this lens and the mk II version a bit down the page. Looks pretty good to me! This will definitely be my next lens purchase, although I won't be able to afford it for some time, particularly considering the price will be equivalent of almost 3200 USD here...



Thanks for the link - looks promising!


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 25, 2016)

Canon Japan has samples of the 16-35 III wide open with 100% corner samples. I've seen plenty of shots from the Tamron 15-30 and I think the Canon is a bit better wide open at widest FL in the corners. We'll have to wait and see if the coma is as good as the Tamron though.


----------



## kaffikopp (Aug 25, 2016)

A few higher-res samples of the 16-35: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-lens-sample-images/


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 25, 2016)

kaffikopp said:


> A few higher-res samples of the 16-35: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-lens-sample-images/


That's some crazy low coma (and CA) at 16mm in the astro shot!


----------



## tron (Aug 25, 2016)

mackguyver said:


> kaffikopp said:
> 
> 
> > A few higher-res samples of the 16-35: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-lens-sample-images/
> ...


Indeed! Thanks for mentioning it!


----------



## sleepnever (Aug 25, 2016)

I'm actually a bit shocked now that everything is official, NDA's lifted, that there are now official reviews of the 16-35. Was really hoping to see those right out the gate like the media has done for the camera.

..waits longer...


----------



## Camerajah (Aug 25, 2016)

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef24-105-ii/index.html

Is that the blue goo I see in that drawing-need help from our Japanese speaking friends here,also see same in the new 16-35


----------



## C4userguy (Aug 26, 2016)

Camerajah said:


> http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef24-105-ii/index.html
> 
> Is that the blue goo I see in that drawing-need help from our Japanese speaking friends here,also see same in the new 16-35



I'm not seeing that optical element in the new 24-105. Are you referencing the ASC-treated element?


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 26, 2016)

mackguyver said:


> kaffikopp said:
> 
> 
> > A few higher-res samples of the 16-35: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-lens-sample-images/
> ...


The CA does look good; can't say if it was corrected in post. The star shot has some significant coma in the corners, but I've seen worse.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 26, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to pricing being announced, I was hopeful that this new 16-35 might drive down the street price of used f/4 variants. Hopeful that a number of f/4 owners ditch that lens to get the latest/greatest. However, I'm figuring the $2200 price tag just puts these two lenses in clearly different markets.
> ...



Ahhhh, you Germans are rich, you can afford it.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 26, 2016)

e_honda said:


> The 24-105 not being a huge jump in optical quality is pretty much expected. Recall the new 50mm f1.8 STM not being much of an improvement in sharpness to the 50mm f1.8 II. It just had better build quality and handling. Also the jump in retail price isn't huge.



In fairness (can someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the 50mm f/1.8 II and STM are the same optical formula. Different focus system, aperture, and some coating on the lens, but the optics were the same.

Good or bad, Canon has hit so many home runs lately on lens releases that the bar has been set a bit high. Anything that is not a home run probably comes across a bit disappointing.


----------



## [email protected]mac.com (Aug 26, 2016)

I do think it's interesting that the Blue Goo gets rolled out only occasionally, and not necessarily for the most expensive lenses. This may be because CA is controlled via other means in many designs. But that 24-105 appears to need some help. Maybe it'll perform better in the flesh than is suggested in the charts.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 26, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> e_honda said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105 not being a huge jump in optical quality is pretty much expected. Recall the new 50mm f1.8 STM not being much of an improvement in sharpness to the 50mm f1.8 II. It just had better build quality and handling. Also the jump in retail price isn't huge.
> ...



I have owned 2 copies of Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 ii – using both extensively some years ago. I exchanged one, and sold the second copy.
Since May 2015 I own a Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM. 

The 50mm STM indeed has the same optical formula (i.e. same glass elements and arrangement of these). Canon indeed employed new glass coatings to improve contrast, boost resolution and reduce flare. My STM is noticeably better than either copy of my 50mm ii on each of these aspects (notable without pixel peeping). In addition, build quality (lens feels more solid, has tighter assembled components) and handling are improved on the 50mm STM compared to its 50mm ii predecessor. 

But where the 50mm STM really shines is in its autofocus speed, accuracy and consistency, compared to the 50mm ii. They are just worlds apart. Sure, there is a possibility of having an even more improved option (true ring type USM or nano-USM). However STM is 70% of the way there. I really disliked the 50mm ii’s AF, it was just way too inaccurate, inconsistent and slow to provide consistently adequate images within the purposes I use and want a 50mm prime for.

Regards, 

Paul 8)


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 26, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> I do think it's interesting that the Blue Goo gets rolled out only occasionally, and not necessarily for the most expensive lenses. This may be because CA is controlled via other means in many designs. But that 24-105 appears to need some help. Maybe it'll perform better in the flesh than is suggested in the charts.


I thought the Blue Spectrum optics only work on prime lens?


----------



## Tangent (Aug 26, 2016)

kaffikopp said:


> A few higher-res samples of the 16-35: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-lens-sample-images/



Thanks for the link. At first I thought, sure but this is stopped down a bit, right? No, the EXIF does indeed as indicated show f2.8. Exposure 10 seconds. It was shot with a 5dMkIV at ISO 6400. ISO6400? That's some low noise for that speed. 

Impressive.


----------



## meson1 (Aug 26, 2016)

I'd like to see a comparison between the new EF 24-105 f/4L IS II and the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II.

I know they're different lenses for different purposes, but I'd still just like to see how close the new 24-105 gets to the 24-70 f/2.8L II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

meson1 said:


> I'd like to see a comparison between the new EF 24-105 f/4L IS II and the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II.
> 
> I know they're different lenses for different purposes, but I'd still just like to see how close the new 24-105 gets to the 24-70 2.8 II.



At this point, all you can compare are the (theoretical) MTF curves.


----------



## meson1 (Aug 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> meson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see a comparison between the new EF 24-105 f/4L IS II and the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II.
> ...


Yes. Patience required until some reviewers get their hands on it.

The thing is, I expect most reviewers will compare it to the on EF 24-105 f/4L IS and the slightly newer EF 24-70 f/4L IS and the usual third party suspects. I'm not sure how many reviews we'll see comparing it to the f2.8L II.

AS I say though. Early days. Patience.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

meson1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > meson1 said:
> ...



When TDP posts their test results, you'll be able to do your own pairwise head-to-head comparisons of the new lens against whatever other lenses you want, for sharpness, vignetting, distortion, and flare. I expect Bryan will include the 24-70/2.8L II in his discussion of comparative lenses.


----------



## sulla (Aug 27, 2016)

WOOOOOO, that price tag for the 16-35 III is hefty. I guess I'll keep my mark II version a little longer, after all, I guess the limiting factor in photos I take with this lens is anyway: MMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEE


----------

