# New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 15, 2012)

```
<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/2012/08/new-wide-angle-zoom-discussion-opinion/"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/08/new-wide-angle-zoom-discussion-opinion/"></a></div>
<strong>From POTN


</strong>A forum thread on POTN talks about a replacement for the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II being due based on past history..</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Quote from the thread</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><em>FD -> new FD = 6.2 years</em></li>
<li><em>new FD -> EF = 5.5 years</em></li>
<li><em>EF -> EF USM = 6.5 years</em></li>
<li><em>17-35 -> 16-35 = 5.7 years</em></li>
<li><em>16-35 -> 16-35 II = 5.3 years</em></li>
<li><em>As of today (August 2012) we are 5.4 years from the release of the 16-35L II</em></li>
</ul>
<p>There has been <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/" target="_blank">lots of talk about an EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a> since Nikon launched such a lens. I wouldn’t think this would be a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8L II, as I can’t see how it can be easily filterable (without large and expensive third party solutions).</p>
<p>If a 14-24 does indeed become the new f/2.8 ultrawide zoom in the Canon lineup, then I expect a 16-40 f/4L IS type of lens to come quickly for the landscape world and for people that need an easy filterable ultrawide. However, the Nikon 14-24 is a monster of a lens, and would be an awkward replacement for a 16-35 at weddings if you currently shoot with one (just my opinion). The widest screw-on filter lens I have seen is the still to be released <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/850101-REG/Zeiss_1964831_Distagon_T_15mm_f_2_8.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Carl Zeiss Distagon T* ZE 15mm f/2.8</a>, which has a 95mm filter thread.</p>
<p>There’s enough chatter about a new wide angle zoom, I think we can start to expect one sooner than later.</p>
<p><strong>Source:</strong> [<a href="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1217837" target="_blank">POTN</a>] via [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 15, 2012)

My 2cents:
I'm ok with 16-35 lenght mrk III or 14-24, but make it sharper at 2.8 as Nikon 14-24


----------



## CJRodgers (Aug 15, 2012)

Isnt there a filter holder for the nikon 14-24? I agree 16mm but sharper would be fine.


----------



## tome223 (Aug 15, 2012)

The 17-40l is nine years old, wonder if that will have a ii version or similar replacement. Just announce the 14-24 before mid November so I can get a Black Friday / Christmas deal on the 17-40!


----------



## Sony (Aug 15, 2012)

I have 24-70mm and 70-200mm. 14-24mm will be the best choice for me. That's why I dont touch 16-35mm.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Aug 15, 2012)

Bring on the 14-24, and it's more money than the 14 prime I'll get the prime. ;D I may as well buy the prime now, as we all know the 14-24 will be $2500+


----------



## markko (Aug 15, 2012)

I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.


----------



## Arkarch (Aug 15, 2012)

The only way I even care about new Canon wides is if they finally become edge sharp. 

Regarding the tail end of the article, when does the Zeiss 15mm finally make it to the channels? I love my Zeiss 21mm (its become my landscape walk-around) and the 15mm would complete my needs at the wide. Except for maybe a Canon TS-E 17mm or if I want to fisheye with the 8-15mm

But if Canon finally does get their sharpness at the level of some of their longer lenses... maybe I would consider. But that would mean they care about more than wedding and sports.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 15, 2012)

markko said:


> I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.
> 
> After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).
> 
> ...



You must have a really bad copy of the 16-35 mkII. The 16-35 is sharper than the 17-40 at every aperture and focal length except borders at 35 mm. This is confirmed by every review including photozone.de, and at the wide end it is as sharp at 2.8 as the 17-40 is at f4.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 15, 2012)

I'd actually like to see a 14-24 to fill in the gap behind the 24-70II and the 70-200 2.8II, as I don't feel the 16-35II is up to the standards of these two. Maybe even a 16-24 and keep the 82mm filters.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 15, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> I'd actually like to see a 14-24 to fill in the gap behind the 24-70II and the 70-200 2.8II, as I don't feel the 16-35II is up to the standards of these two. Maybe even a 16-24 and keep the 82mm filters.



A sharp, light 16-24 f2.8 or 20-35 f2.8 would suit me best too, but I think we are hopelessly outnumbered by those who want a 2.5 lb brick with a bulby lens.


----------



## zrz2005101 (Aug 15, 2012)

I would hope that Canon releases a new wide angle lens in which filters are applicable since our landscape photographers need them but surely it better than the 16-35II which sucks at the wide end.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 15, 2012)

Etienne said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd actually like to see a 14-24 to fill in the gap behind the 24-70II and the 70-200 2.8II, as I don't feel the 16-35II is up to the standards of these two. Maybe even a 16-24 and keep the 82mm filters.
> ...



A 16-24 2.8 that was tack sharp (same specs as the new 24-70II) would be perfect. For anyone who needs the UW end of it, there's the 14mm 2.8II.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Aug 15, 2012)

markko said:


> I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.
> 
> After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).
> 
> ...



You're the first person I've ever heard say the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 MkII. I'm going to go further and say you outright had a defective copy of the 16-35 because every tester says the 16-35 is sharper and my own experiences have reflected that.


----------



## Arkarch (Aug 15, 2012)

KitsVancouver said:


> markko said:
> 
> 
> > I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.
> ...



If I recall the charts correctly, the 16-35 is sharper, but has a fairly dramatic drop at the edges. The 17-40 has less of a change from center to edge - so it the perception may be less pronounced.

That or yeah, crappy 16-35 copy. But even then, I recall most of the sharpness is in the upper end of that lens - which can be handled by far better lenses. A 14-24 or even a really good 16-24 would be preferable, since just about everyone has 24 on up.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 16, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> I'm against a 16-24, because current 16-35 in terms of focal length, is perfect match of 70-200 and a 50 prime. Not everyone care about the joe six-pack 24-70 zoom lens.



True that.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 16, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> I'm against a 16-24, because current 16-35 in terms of focal length, is perfect match of 70-200 and a 50 prime. Not everyone care about the joe six-pack 24-70 zoom lens.



I have that setup (16-35 f2.8II, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f2.8 IS II), and while it's good, I would prefer :

16-24 f2.8 sharp and contrasty awesomeness at all focal lengths
35 f1.4 II- awesome sharp and contrasty
70-200 2.8 IS II - incredible (already in my bag)


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 16, 2012)

I have a savings account with several thousands dollars in it release next year.

If Canon has a good EF 14-24mm by then, I'll buy EF 14-24mm + EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mk2, selling the 17-40mm along the way.

If not, I'm off to buy a Nikon FF camera + Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 16, 2012)

i also own the 16-35 f/2.8 II and corner performance to me is a real issue with this lens. i would love to see a mark III with this resolved. i would love to see a 14-24 f/2.8 too, but the missing front filter possibility would be a drawback...


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Aug 16, 2012)

I also prefer an updated 16-35/2.8 instead of the 14-24. And please keep the 82mm filter size!


----------



## traveller (Aug 16, 2012)

People seem to be asking for three different lenses: some want an update of the 16-35mm design with higher resolution; others are willing to sacrifice some range on the long end for extra wide angle coverage; yet others want this lens to retain front mounted filter compatibility. 

Even Nikon (who seem to be able to do no wrong when it comes to wide angle lenses -at least in some people's eyes) need three UWA zooms to do this! 

It will be interesting to see if Canon simply update the optical design of the current 16-35mm, attempt to match Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8, or whether they try something different (the position of the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM might influence their thinking).


----------



## c-law (Aug 16, 2012)

Can anyone explain to me if it is possible or desirable to create a UWA like a 14-24mm with a drop in filter system like the superteles. Why? Why not?

If the front elements are to bulbous to fit a filter just as the front elements on superteles are just simply too large then why don't they have this?

Chris


----------



## traveller (Aug 16, 2012)

c-law said:


> Can anyone explain to me if it is possible or desirable to create a UWA like a 14-24mm with a drop in filter system like the superteles. Why? Why not?
> 
> If the front elements are to bulbous to fit a filter just as the front elements on superteles are just simply too large then why don't they have this?
> 
> Chris



Pentax does drop in filters with their new 25mm (645) lens: 

http://2.static.img-dpreview.com/files/news/8784334430/DA645_25FLT.jpg?v=1560

Of course, there could be further complications with a zoom lens, which may make the idea untenable (I'm no lens design expert). Even if Canon could implement this, it would still not allow the use of rectangular ND grads (at least not without specialised and expensive filters/holders).


----------



## RC (Aug 16, 2012)

Shooting with a 7D and have a 16-35 II. I will be getting either the new FF or a 5D3, looking forward to shooting landscapes on a FF with my 16-35. What kind of issues should I expect if any (edge sharpness, CA, vignetting) shooting form 5.6 - 11 on a FF? Thanks


----------



## tron (Aug 16, 2012)

An EF16-35 f/2.8 L III that has sharper edges than previous versions, not much vignetting and not much coma at the edges would be just fine.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 16, 2012)

I have a 17-40mm and am ok with the focal length, however I cringe at the corner distortion. It is like when Fox TV tries to widen a SD feed to a 16:9.

Yes corner sharpness needs improvement... that goes without saying, but in group shots, it is the distortion that bothers me the most.

I would like a 16-50mm f2.8 so that I am carrying fewer lenses when I go trekking.


----------



## 5D Freak (Aug 16, 2012)

I would be stoked with a 16mm f2.8 (or even f2.0) filterable prime! Screw the zoom part to save size and cost, and to give the best image quality. Already have a 17tse (sharp but not practically filterable) and 17-40 (slow and edge softness with light falloff). A small 16mm prime would be good in the surf too!


----------



## Caps18 (Aug 16, 2012)

I have no problems with my 16-35mm II f/2.8.

I haven't looked real close at the 17TSe vs 16-35mm @17mm yet, but for a city skyline it wasn't too different in terms of sharpness. The corners were blue sky and blue water though. And it was my first time shooting the 17mm TSe, so getting the focus just right was different.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 17, 2012)

There are some interesting concepts pending:
1. Patent from March 2, 2012: EF 17-40 f/2.8-4L - http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/patent-canon-17-40-f2-8-4l/
2. Patent from August 2011: EF 16-35 F 2.8 DO - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/08/canon-16-35-f2-8-do-patent/
3. Patent from April 2011: EFS 11 f/2 - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-s-11mm-f2-patent/
4. From November 2009 - EF 15-24/F3.5-4.5 Fish eye zoom - http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2009-11-27
5. From December 2009 - EF14-24 f/2.8L - http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/
6. Finally from March 2012 - new EF16-35mm f/2.8, EF17-35mm f/2.8-4, EF16-35mm f/2-2.8 - http://photorumors.com/2012/03/29/canon-patents-for-a-16-35mm-f2-8-lens-and-2-8x-teleconverter/

It would also be great to see some lenses of this kind: http://www.canonwatch.com/liquid-lens-patent-by-canon-and-video/

Any of the above mentioned concepts, if produced and offered the difference in quality like between the old and new 24-70 (as promised so far) would be a great step forward better quality in the wide end range. In my opinion the best moment for introducing a new wide killer would be while showing the high MP body - the perfect landscape combo.


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 17, 2012)

Arkarch said:


> The only way I even care about new Canon wides is if they finally become edge sharp.
> 
> Regarding the tail end of the article, when does the Zeiss 15mm finally make it to the channels? I love my Zeiss 21mm (its become my landscape walk-around) and the 15mm would complete my needs at the wide. Except for maybe a Canon TS-E 17mm or if I want to fisheye with the 8-15mm
> 
> But if Canon finally does get their sharpness at the level of some of their longer lenses... maybe I would consider. But that would mean they care about more than wedding and sports.



Yeah I love the 21mm as well, it's ridiculously sharp for a wide angle. As for the 15mm, I think some people have already gotten their hands on it (in Europe at least), but I've seen some tests and it blows the 14L II away. Then again it is almost $3k and takes 95mm filters (but at the same time the 14L doesn't take filters at all).


----------



## preppyak (Aug 17, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> 3. Patent from April 2011: EFS 11 f/2 - http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-s-11mm-f2-patent/


Actually, this one was a lens for a projector; not for a DSLR


----------



## Otter (Aug 18, 2012)

I would love to see a 16-35 III, as well as a 14-24 f/2.8! Wider and sharper Canon!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 19, 2012)

My impression from reviews is that Nikon's equivalents to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (the 17-35mm f/2.8) and EF 17-40mm f/4 (the 16–35 mm f/4 VR) do not have the kind of advantage which would make people switch to Nikon, or prefer it in the first place.

Though the 16-35 & 17-40 would benefit from an upgrade, IMHO Canon's priority would be a lens to compete with the 14-24mm.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 19, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> My impression from reviews is that Nikon's equivalents to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 (the 17-35mm f/2.8) and EF 17-40mm f/4 (the 16–35 mm f/4 VR) do not have the kind of advantage which would make people switch to Nikon, or prefer it in the first place.
> 
> Though the 16-35 & 17-40 would benefit from an upgrade, IMHO Canon's priority would be a lens to compete with the 14-24mm.



Looking on TDP at comparisons between those lenses it looks like Nikons are worse than Canons in edges (less resolution, more CA) but slightly better in midframe. Tests are achieved with the use of different cameras, but intending the switch, one should consider the combo, not lenses alone. 

N 14-24 F2.8 vs C 16-35 F.28 II, N 16-35 F4 vs C 17-40 F4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=689&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

As I read those resolutions charts I conclude, that N 17-35 2.8 is a complete disaster.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=616&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2


----------

