# Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Coming in June [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 12, 2016)

```
<p>We’re told that we can expect to see the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III to be announced in June of 2016, and availability coming fairly quickly, likely by the end of July.</p>
<p>A person who has used the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III says it’s every bit as good as the recent L offerings from Canon and “solves the most glaring weaknesses of the current version.”</p>
<p>We haven’t been told anything about pricing yet, but we hope to hear more about that in the coming weeks.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (May 12, 2016)

thats interesting, I hope Canon launches 50mm Macro or 1.4 replacement at same event. I personally would like a ef 50/60 1:1 IF macro lens.


----------



## nda (May 12, 2016)

Excellent


----------



## stavrosg (May 12, 2016)

Really interesting, indeed.

As long as it doesn't end up double the price, it should make a fine addition to my kit.


----------



## Cheekysascha (May 12, 2016)

Oh damn it, I just picked up the 16-35mm f4 is two weeks ago  oh well I think I'm sorted with it and the 14mm 2.8 ii for lowlight.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 12, 2016)

Had to go and check the mkII was released a decade ago. For some reason I thought it was a bit newer.


----------



## romanr74 (May 12, 2016)

I'm getting excited... If the promise holds true I might have two 16-35 for sale...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2016)

Usually used my 16-35/2.8 II stopped down, sold it after the 16-35/4L IS came out, but opted for the TS-E 17/4L instead. If anything, will get the 11-24/4L as a UWA over a 16-35/2.8 III.

I wonder if the MkIII will have the blue goo?


----------



## d (May 12, 2016)

Count me in for one of these.

d.


----------



## adventureous (May 12, 2016)

Looks like my Christmas is coming early.


----------



## Dfunk99 (May 12, 2016)

But . . . . *will it have IS?????*


----------



## Memdroid (May 12, 2016)

I've been waiting for this update. I am dumping my 16-35 II right now.


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (May 12, 2016)

Been waiting for this. I wasnt sure if it would be late this year or next..or if at all. 
Would be great to have it for Filters. miss that with my Tamron 15-30, which replace the 16-35II.

crossing fingers its below $1600...but somehow i doubt it


----------



## Labdoc (May 12, 2016)

Awesome. i was just about to pull the trigger on the Tamron 15-30 F2.8. Now I'll wait and see.


----------



## j-nord (May 12, 2016)

Yes, please and low coma! I still haven't picked up any samyang/rokinon lenses for astro because I've been waiting for this much more versatile lens!


----------



## romanr74 (May 12, 2016)

Dfunk99 said:


> But . . . . *will it have IS?????*



I don't think so. 
You'll have to make a choice between IS (at f/4) or f/2.8 (w/o IS).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 12, 2016)

I best get saving....For me, the f2.8 aperture is more important than size or Image Stabilization. The current mkII has the best sunstars of any lens I know...I just hope Canon keep that the same...although I suspect they will follow the f4's route and put more blades in the aperture than necessary. 

A flat plane of focus at f2.8, low CA and newer and better coatings would really help this lens. The current mkII is already very good for flare control (way better than the 24-70IIL at 24mm), but like all things...there's room for improvement. 

I was pondering this the other day. Canon used to get a bad rap for their wide lenses. But these days, they have the most interesting, innovative, creative and capable wide lenses in their lens portfolio...more so than any other brand. The fish eye zoom 8-15L....unique and the last fisheye I'll ever need. The TS-e 17L...again unique and a fantastic optic. The new 11-24mm L is the widest rectilinear zoom lens ever made and again it's an amazing optic. The 16-35 LIS f4 has won a lot of hearts for it's impressive optical capability...so an f2.8 version should be very welcome too.


----------



## romanr74 (May 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I best get saving....For me, the f2.8 aperture is more important than size or Image Stabilization. The current mkII has the best sunstars of any lens I know...I just hope Canon keep that the same...although I suspect they will follow the f4's route and put more blades in the aperture than necessary.
> 
> A flat plane of focus at f2.8, low CA and newer and better coatings would really help this lens. The current mkII is already very good for flare control (way better than the 24-70IIL at 24mm), but like all things...there's room for improvement.
> 
> I was pondering this the other day. Canon used to get a bad rap for their wide lenses. But these days, they have the most interesting, innovative, creative and capable wide lenses in their lens portfolio...more so than any other brand. The fish eye zoom 8-15L....unique and the last fisheye I'll ever need. The TS-e 17L...again unique and a fantastic optic. The new 11-24mm L is the widest rectilinear zoom lens ever made and again it's an amazing optic. The 16-35 LIS f4 has won a lot of hearts for it's impressive optical capability...so an f2.8 version should be very welcome too.



Couldn't agree more. However, shift does quite some bad to the corners/extremes of the TS-E 17L. Yet in general I agree that the recent wide lens relases from Canon are unmatched by competition. It took me a while actually going for the 11-24 for its sheer price - but I'm still in a long honeymoon...


----------



## Random Orbits (May 12, 2016)

Interesting... Had a 16-35 II for a period of time but didn't like it. Replaced it with the 16-35 f/4 IS, which has grown on me. IS ended up being more useful than I thought it would, but I still miss the f/2.8. Will wait for reviews on the 16-35 III before considering it, and then wait some for the price drop or for the lens to show up in the refurb store. Too bad it won't have IS!


----------



## tron (May 12, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Yes, please and low coma! I still haven't picked up any samyang/rokinon lenses for astro because I've been waiting for this much more versatile lens!


+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

It is the only thing that will make me buy it.


----------



## davidj (May 12, 2016)

If it's going to be called the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III" then it won't have IS, but I'd be happier if it was the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IS" instead.

For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 12, 2016)

davidj said:


> For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?



Because that is what they do with the 24-70's!


----------



## cenkog (May 12, 2016)

Most glaring weakness is still "IS" unfortunately...





Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that we can expect to see the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III to be announced in June of 2016, and availability coming fairly quickly, likely by the end of July.</p>
> <p>A person who has used the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III says it’s every bit as good as the recent L offerings from Canon and “solves the most glaring weaknesses of the current version.”</p>
> <p>We haven’t been told anything about pricing yet, but we hope to hear more about that in the coming weeks.</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>


----------



## davidj (May 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> davidj said:
> 
> 
> > For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?
> ...



I'm hoping that situation changes too in the not too distance future...


----------



## nightscape123 (May 12, 2016)

If it has IS, low coma and isn't too massive I might sell my Tamron 15-30. I love the 15-30, it has been an awesome lens, but being able to use filters and having less weight to lug around might be worth it. I'll have to wait and see.


----------



## romanr74 (May 12, 2016)

davidj said:


> If it's going to be called the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III" then it won't have IS, but I'd be happier if it was the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IS" instead.
> 
> For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?



Because othervise everybody will be complaining about size and weight...


----------



## photojoern.de (May 12, 2016)

I own the 16-35mm f4 with IS and I am perfectly happy with the lens. Very good optics, sharp even in the edges. And with the IS I can go down to 1/10th of a second hand held and it´s still sharp on a 5 DS. See e.g. this one hand held shot: https://500px.com/photo/137970609/the-bridge-at-lake-tonle-sap-by-photo-j%C3%B6rn
The f2.8 doesn´t have an IS, so I believe it´s just for star photography where there is a real advantage. Not for street, not for landscape or cityscape, by day or by night.
I really hope for an f2.8 24-70 L with an IS - brilliant optics, good aperture and IS would really make a difference in High Quality street photography.


----------



## Memdroid (May 12, 2016)

photojoern.de said:


> I own the 16-35mm f4 with IS and I am perfectly happy with the lens. Very good optics, sharp even in the edges. And with the IS I can go down to 1/10th of a second hand held and it´s still sharp on a 5 DS. See e.g. this one hand held shot: https://500px.com/photo/137970609/the-bridge-at-lake-tonle-sap-by-photo-j%C3%B6rn
> The f2.8 doesn´t have an IS, so I believe it´s just for star photography where there is a real advantage. Not for street, not for landscape or cityscape, by day or by night.
> I really hope for an f2.8 24-70 L with an IS - brilliant optics, good aperture and IS would really make a difference in High Quality street photography.



2.8 is good for stopping action at low light. It is a very useful.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Usually used my 16-35/2.8 II stopped down, sold it after the 16-35/4L IS came out, but opted for the TS-E 17/4L instead. If anything, will get the 11-24/4L as a UWA over a 16-35/2.8 III.
> 
> I wonder if the MkIII will have the blue goo?



+1 on wondering about the BR gunk. One would think that if this lens _doesn't_ get it, Canon may only offer it in the f/1.4 and f/1.2 primes at first.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (May 12, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> davidj said:
> 
> 
> > If it's going to be called the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III" then it won't have IS, but I'd be happier if it was the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IS" instead.
> ...



Size and weight is a spurious argument, the difference between the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8IS is 5oz, 1mm wide and 3mm long, and manufacturing processes and materials have improved immensely in that time.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

StoneColdCoffee said:


> Would be great to have it for Filters.



That's a hammerlock certainty, IMHO. Event folks need NDs for really bright outdoor shots, and sports folks need UV for no other reason than to seal the front element, right? And the very few folks who will buy this lens for landscape work (presuming they don't need f/2.8 ) would use a CPL for water reflections and such.

So I'll eat my hat if Canon pulls a knuckleheaded Tamron 15-30 move and makes the front element too bulbous for filtering.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Dfunk99 said:
> 
> 
> > But . . . . *will it have IS?????*
> ...



The 'III' designation = no IS. If it had IS, it would simply be 16-35 f/2.8L IS.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I was pondering this the other day. Canon used to get a bad rap for their wide lenses. But these days, they have the most interesting, innovative, creative and capable wide lenses in their lens portfolio...more so than any other brand. The fish eye zoom 8-15L....unique and the last fisheye I'll ever need. The TS-e 17L...again unique and a fantastic optic. The new 11-24mm L is the widest rectilinear zoom lens ever made and again it's an amazing optic. The 16-35 LIS f4 has won a lot of hearts for it's impressive optical capability...so an f2.8 version should be very welcome too.



+1. The tilt-shift world has always been good, but their ultra-wide zooms have been iffy for landscape needs until the 16-35 f/4L IS came out. Then came the 11-24 f/4L. So most landscapers have just about everything they need except for a fast + wide + coma free lens for astro.

Not sure this new lens will be it. Undoubtedly this lens will be focused on events / sports needs instead, but it's possible Canon shoots for the moon coma-wise. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

davidj said:


> For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?



For whatever reason, with ultrawide zooms and standard zooms, Canon has a "f/2.8 doesn't get IS & f/4 _does_ get IS" approach. They've been consistent on this with the 24-somethings, and now it appears that they have done the same for the 16-35s. 

The ultra-ultra-wides (11-24, 8-15, etc.) are an exception -- they get nothing.

I'd love IS on everything, personally.

- A


----------



## TommyLee (May 12, 2016)

wrap it up..... I est $1700..............
they usually announce JUST befor my birthday....
..they know me...

if they make it I.S. ...... $2200...
and they will have trouble keeping in stock...

either way... I stalled with the 16-35 f4L I.S. looked great... but wanted fast with I.S. ....
and have a tamron 15-30 good optically all around...sharp

... but if this Canon 16-35 has I.S. (doubtful) I will sell the Tamron...

if coma is low it will be quite popular... 

the Tamron f2.8 coma is low....
so it is the one to beat

the 100-400 II... and 35L are a marvel of performance....
love em

////
a 24-105 II would be wonderful.... 
just sayin


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

photojoern.de said:


> I really hope for an f2.8 24-70 L with an IS - brilliant optics, good aperture and IS would really make a difference in High Quality street photography.



I agree there is a market for a 24-70 f/2.8L IS lens, but for _street_ shooting? That's more like paparazzi shooting! I have no idea how you discreetly take photos of people with a big pickle jar sort of lens.

To each their own, but I'd rather have the 35 f/2 IS USM for such a task. Small, relatively discreet, useful street focal length, f/2 and IS.

- A


----------



## romanr74 (May 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > davidj said:
> ...



I doubt you can seriously take a 70-200 f/2.8 design IS vs. non-IS as a reference for a 24-70 design...


----------



## JohanCruyff (May 12, 2016)

Have the mandatory "Canon is *******" and "Canon is lagging behind" sentences been written?


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 12, 2016)

Im with photojoern.de the Canon EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM lens is really an outstanding lens and if Canon can meet the optical quality of that lens in a 2.8 version it will do super well with low light shooters. On my Canon 5DS the f4L version is an awsome combination for landscape. Canon has hit some great home runs recently the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS SUSM II lens, the EF 35mm f1.4L II (blue spectrum refractive optics) show what they can do when they set their mind to it. 

I hope they then focus on the EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM because thats not a shinning example of what Canon can do and the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is equally overdue a overhall.


----------



## romanr74 (May 12, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> Have the mandatory "Canon is *******" and "Canon is lagging behind" sentences been written?



not yet...


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> Have the mandatory "Canon is *******" and "Canon is lagging behind" sentences been written?



A new product offering like this -- just a refresh, albeit to a critical professional lens -- will not shut those people up.

And it's always about sensors with those folks, anyway. A Sony A9 test rig was apparently spotted in New York yesterday, and it clearly had a '72 MP' badge on it (because Sony is classy like that). The 'sky is falling' crowd has plenty to crow about today. 

- A


----------



## romanr74 (May 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > davidj said:
> ...



Block diagram of a 70-200 f/2.8 below. There is endless space for the extra IS element between the standard groups. When you show me where this space is in the 24-70 and/or 16-35 we're in the discussion...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2016)

davidj said:


> For those of us interested in IS, why would Canon make us choose between the f/4 IS and a way more expensive f/2.8 without?



They're hoping you can't choose and end up buying both!


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I best get saving....For me, the f2.8 aperture is more important than size or Image Stabilization. The current mkII has the best sunstars of any lens I know...I just hope Canon keep that the same...although I suspect they will follow the f4's route and put more blades in the aperture than necessary.



I'm pretty fond of the stopped down lighting/sunstars I see with my 16-35 f/4L IS -- sample attached. (In fairness, I think the odd number of blades and the resulting added points may have something to do with this. Like a kid, I just think it's more interesting to look at. #enthusiast)

But I've only rented a 16-35 f/2.8L II and haven't shot much landscape work with it. What makes its sunstars so special? It is a design consideration, or is it something to do with starting from an f/2.8 lens before you stop it down? (I'm admittedly ignorant on this.)

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (May 12, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...


Agree to some extent, but if you understand what IS does, where it is in the optical path, and how small the movements it actually makes are then you'd realise there isn't a huge difference in the IS units. And don't forget, IS in lenses like the EF-s 18-55, the EF-s 10-18, and the true optical path and physical length benchmark the EF16-35 f4 IS. There is no reason why a 16-35 f2.8IS needs to be any longer than the f4 version, which few would argue is too long, wider yes, but no reason to be much wider in the lens barrel (not the front element) than the current 16-35 f2.8 MkII.

I believe the real reason Canon have not given the 'Blue Ribbon' f2.8 zooms IS is because of image quality and the core user base feedback about necessity, the big users, the news and sports outlets, don't feel the need for IS, so we don't get it in those lenses. Having said that, just take a look at the dire efforts Nikon made with their 24-70 f2.8 IS, the lens has become something of a joke among Nikon users!

P.S. You ask for a block diagram to show you where the space is, here is the 16-35 f4 IS. Indeed if you compare the 16-35 f4IS and the 16-35 f2.8 MkII there is a lot of similarity.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Block diagram of a 70-200 f/2.8 below. There is endless space for the extra IS element between the standard groups. When you show me where this space is in the 24-70 and/or 16-35 we're in the discussion...



Length: I agree with you. The current 16-35 and 24-something designs are packed in really tightly.

Weight: Disagree. The IS hardware doesn't get heavier when you are handling less weight of glass, does it?

I absolutely think Canon could offer f/2.8 IS zooms. For whatever reason -- "Pros don't need IS in wider FLs", Neuro's argument that Canon wants us to buy both, etc. -- they aren't doing it.

- A


----------



## quod (May 12, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> Have the mandatory "Canon is *******" and "Canon is lagging behind" sentences been written?


Nope, nobody said that... Regarding the lack of IS, well, I have an A7RII which solves that problem.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

quod said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > Have the mandatory "Canon is *******" and "Canon is lagging behind" sentences been written?
> ...



That's it, you've solved it!

Canon Marketing Guy #1: "The market research says that there is an unmet need: standard zooms and ultra-wide f/2.8 zooms need image stabilization. I think we should put IS on those lenses."

Canon Marketing Guy #2: "Nah. They can slap those lenses on Sony rigs for IBIS. Job done. Nice work. High five."

Canon Marketing Guy #1: "Marketing is *easy*. Let's go count our money out loud like we're Scrooge McDuck."

[Both go out of their way to nutpunch / wedgie any hard-at-work engineers they pass by in the hallway as they walk out.]

- A


----------



## romanr74 (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Block diagram of a 70-200 f/2.8 below. There is endless space for the extra IS element between the standard groups. When you show me where this space is in the 24-70 and/or 16-35 we're in the discussion...
> ...



Beg u pardon... The IS hardware itself adds weight. The Nikkor IS 24-70 is 1070g vs. non IS 900g or plus 19% of weight.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Beg u pardon... The IS hardware itself adds weight. The Nikkor IS 24-70 is 1070g vs. non IS 900g or plus 19% of weight.



People would give their left nut for an f/2.8 IS lens. A 20% weight premium is not a terrible price to pay for that. (Not everyone agrees on that, of course, so perhaps both a non-IS_ and_ IS version should be offered.)

Further, given that the update from the 24-70 f/2.8L I --> 24-70 f/2.8L II _lost five ounces in the process_, one would think a 16-35 f/2.8L IS could come in around the same weight as the 16-35 f/2.8L II is today.

I'm not saying that I personally want IS in this lens -- I'm just saying that this is entirely technically possible to deliver it. Canon is only reason why Canon is not offering this.

- A


----------



## davidj (May 12, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Beg u pardon... The IS hardware itself adds weight. The Nikkor IS 24-70 is 1070g vs. non IS 900g or plus 19% of weight.



That lens also went from 15 elements in 11 groups to 20 elements in 16 groups and 77mm filters to 82mm. I'm guessing that not all of that weight gain is because of IS.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Block diagram of a 70-200 f/2.8 below. There is endless space for the extra IS element between the standard groups. When you show me where this space is in the 24-70 and/or 16-35 we're in the discussion...
> ...



Then look at the block diagrams I posted and tell me how they did it with the f4 that has a remarkably similar optical formulae as the 16-35 f2.8 MkII.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (May 12, 2016)

I would order one in a heartbeat if it had IS. The 16-35 F4 IS is my favorite video lens (2nd favorite still lens), so I really need IS. 2.8 IS would be killer for video applications


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

davidj said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Beg u pardon... The IS hardware itself adds weight. The Nikkor IS 24-70 is 1070g vs. non IS 900g or plus 19% of weight.
> ...



Was going to say the same, but the original point is still valid. IS hardware is not weightless, I get that. I just think the value proposition is a simple one: 

Canon: "Hey dude, want a 16-35 f/2.8L IS for another [$$$ premium] and X% more weight over the 16-35 f/2.8L III?"

1/3 of market: "Yes, please. I occasionally shoot video or take handheld shots in low light."

2/3 of market: "Nah. No need / too heavy / too pricey."

- A


----------



## quod (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > JohanCruyff said:
> ...


The IBIS feature is very effective with the 24-70/2.8 II. If the 16-35/2.8 III IQ is even remotely as good as the 24-70 on the A7RII, it will be an awesome combo.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > davidj said:
> ...



True, but canon have gone on record to say that it's easier to fit IS units on telephoto lenses than normal or wide lenses. They have also said that the wider the angle...the less effective they are. A 16mm should be hand hold-able at around 1/15th sec....a 500mm will need 1/500th for the same sharpness / reciprocal rule. IS units aren't as good as the shutter speed approaches the 1 second mark. So putting an IS unit on a wide is _widely_ seen as academic....sorry I couldn't help the pun!


----------



## davidj (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> davidj said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



I wish I actually knew something about lens design so that I could have this conversation without making wild guesses based on existing lenses. To the best of my knowledge, IS weighs something, but it probably isn't much (maybe +10%?), and it costs something, but cheap lenses have it, so a higher price because it has IS is mostly Canon's profit.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 12, 2016)

I was looking over my last two years of shooting stats in lightroom earlier. My three most used lenses last year were:
400mm f2.8 LIS (that surprised me a lot) 
16-35 f2.8 L II (no brainer...and my copy is really worn and well used looking)
85mm f1.2 L (also not a surprise)


----------



## privatebydesign (May 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



That doesn't explain the 16-35 f4IS the EF-s 18-55 IS and the EF-s 10-18 IS.

Easier maybe, not possible, clearly not.


----------



## tron (May 12, 2016)

Although I will get this lens if it is both sharp (like f/4 IS) and coma free (to combine landscapes with landscape astrophotography with one lens) I must admit that the stabilizer in f/4 L IS comes very handy when I use it inside museums (no flash photography).


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> True, but canon have gone on record to say that it's easier to fit IS units on telephoto lenses than normal or wide lenses. They have also said that the wider the angle...the less effective they are. A 16mm should be hand hold-able at around 1/15th sec....a 500mm will need 1/500th for the same sharpness / reciprocal rule. IS units aren't as good as the shutter speed approaches the 1 second mark. So putting an IS unit on a wide is _widely_ seen as academic....sorry I couldn't help the pun!



You are correct that it's harder to pull off / theoretically less effective at wider FLs, but don't tell that to Canon -- from Bryan Carnathan's review of the 16-35 f/4L IS at TDP:

"Under ideal conditions (standing indoors on a solid floor) and shooting completely freehand, at 16mm, I obtained a decent sharp image percentage down to about .6 seconds for just over 3 stops of assistance."

3 stops IS for such a lens is a massive opportunity. It allows me to take what normally would be a very low light ISO 6400 shot (on a non-IS lens) at a far better quality ISO 800 shot with IS, or it lets me keep the ISO at 6400 and stop down for more working DOF. 

Handheld / impromptu / walkabout nighttime cityscape shots, shooting inside of a church where tripods are not allowed, video stabilization --> the applications of it are great for stills _and_ video folks.

- A


----------



## RGF (May 12, 2016)

nda said:


> Excellent



+100


----------



## Wick (May 12, 2016)

Memdroid said:


> I've been waiting for this update. I am dumping my 16-35 II right now.



Just curious. What are the "glaring weaknesses" of the current lens? I have used it for several years now and found it to be a pretty good lens. But if there are some weaknesses likely to affect my particular applications I would be pleased to know about them.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

Wick said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > I've been waiting for this update. I am dumping my 16-35 II right now.
> ...



Unless all you care about is the frame center, the 16-35 f/4L IS mops the floor with it optically. Landscapers abandoned the 16-35 f/2.8L II en masse once it was clear how much better the 16-35 f/4L IS was.

Event/sports folks have always held on to theirs as f/2.8 is far more important than overall sharpness, but recent third party UWA f/2.8 zooms have shown that you can get more out of such lenses.

So, in my mind, the 16-35 f/2.8L II is actually a fine lens, but such a staple professional tool needs to be periodically updated to justify its high price. That's what's happening here.

- A


----------



## wockawocka (May 12, 2016)

Yeah the F4 wipes the floor with it and to be fair to the F4, unless the 2.8 III has IS I won't be moving to it.

It's only a stop difference and it sort of makes such a wide lens redundant unless you're trying to stop time in low light.

I'd much rather they get the blue goo into new 50 and a rear focusing 85L.


----------



## Maximilian (May 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder if the MkIII will have the blue goo?


Same thought here! 
Wonder how this element would work with a zoom...


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> Yeah the F4 wipes the floor with it and to be fair to the F4, unless the 2.8 III has IS I won't be moving to it.
> 
> It's only a stop difference and it sort of makes such a wide lens redundant unless you're trying to stop time in low light.
> 
> I'd much rather they get the blue goo into new 50 and a rear focusing 85L.



Depends on what you shoot with it.

I see landscapers completely ignoring this new lens unless it one-ups the 16-35 f/4L IS's sharpness dramatically, which would be quite a feat. Landscapers don't want the weight, so f/4 is perfect for them.

I see Sports/Events folks pre-ordering it on day one. It's a critical tool that would benefit from the same kind of resolution bump the 24-70 f/2.8L I --> II demonstrated.

I see astro folks -- like with all false dawns -- waiting for coma data before getting their hearts crushed again, like with the Sigma 20mm f/1.4.

Architecture folks will probably drive right past this in favor of the T/S lenses and the great 11-24 f/4L.

- A


----------



## tron (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ...
> I see astro folks -- like with all false dawns -- waiting for coma data before getting their hearts crushed again, like with the Sigma 20mm f/1.4.
> 
> ...
> - A


Very true


----------



## SlydeR (May 12, 2016)

I was on just about to buy the f/4 version...I guess I'll hold off a bit longer for the faster version.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

tron said:


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



Canon has an easy option for astro folks, I think. Just put the BR gunk on a future 24mm f/1.4L III and be done with it. The 35L II coma performance looks pretty strong, so one might hope that improvement would translate to 24mm.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> StoneColdCoffee said:
> 
> 
> > Would be great to have it for Filters.
> ...



Mr. Sanford, there are filters available for the front of the Tamron. It also has IS (VC) and is considered to be a very, very good UWA with very low coma.  Same as the Canon 11-24mm (filters). Dustin Abbott does a great review on the Tamron along with other reviewers.

However, I don't think the front element on this new Canon lens will be bulbous. Filters will screw right on the front. I do understand wanting to use our existing screw on filters ($$$).


----------



## Random Orbits (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I'm thinking the same thing. Although if the 16-35 III has BR, then it'd be an indication that Canon will probably use it for all the high end UW lenses going forward. Would love to see the 24 III and 14 III get it. With Canon choosing to produce the 11-24 f/4 instead of competing with Nikon head on with a 14-24, it still leaves a niche for the 14mm prime.

Canon used be weak in the UWA focal length range, but that is quickly turning into a strength. And if it chooses to add a coma fix to all larger aperture Ls...


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > So I'll eat my hat if Canon pulls a knuckleheaded Tamron 15-30 move and makes the front element too bulbous for filtering.
> ...



Well aware -- there is an outrigger for everything these days it seems. 

I was referring to removing the front filter threads. The 16-35 f/2.8L III will simply have a front filter ring. It must.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> Canon used be weak in the UWA focal length range, but that is quickly turning into a strength. And if it chooses to add a coma fix to all larger aperture Ls...



+1. With the 16-35 f/2.8L III, Canon will be done with UWA zooms for quite some time. 

The only major holes I see in the entire EF zoom lineup after this lens would be a superzoom up to 500 or 600mm. That and perhaps a super cheap UWA zoom, like a plasticky non-L 17-40mm f/4.5-5.6 STM for $300, but perhaps no one in FF would slap that on a $2k+ body...

- A


----------



## tron (May 12, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


16-35 f/4L IS and 24-70 2.8 L II are fine with coma. So I believe the new 16-35 will be fine too. But I would welcome a coma free 24 1.4 III. As far as 14 2.8 is concerned I use version II which although not coma free it is not horrible. If I can have a 16-35 2.8 that is coma free I would consider it over a 14 III since missing 2mm less is not a disaster and I value more a hood and a flat front element with hood over a bulbous one (with embedded hood) to protect me from side lights.


----------



## Krob78 (May 12, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> davidj said:
> 
> 
> > If it's going to be called the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III" then it won't have IS, but I'd be happier if it was the "Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IS" instead.
> ...


If their complaining about the size and weight, it's only because they've not been shooting with the 11-24mm f/4 ;D


----------



## tron (May 12, 2016)

Krob78 said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > davidj said:
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## mnclayshooter (May 12, 2016)

EEEP... 

I was about 1 mouse click away from buying the f4 today at lunch when I saw this. Might be holding out a little bit. Some people will no-doubt unload their f4 to get the 2.8, I'd guess - even though they seem to be targeted to two slightly different crowds.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

mnclayshooter said:


> EEEP...
> 
> I was about 1 mouse click away from buying the f4 today at lunch when I saw this. Might be holding out a little bit. Some people will no-doubt unload their f4 to get the 2.8, I'd guess - even though they seem to be targeted to two slightly different crowds.



_Slightly_ different? Unless you want to dabble in astro, I don't know how a delighted 16-35 f/4L IS user would make the jump:

1) "You know what would make this landscape even better? An aperture I'll never use, a ton more weight, and some new 82mm filters. That sounds *awesome*."

2) "My videos would get even better without IS. Take my money, Canon."

Both of those: said by no one ever.

The only way there will be an exodus from the 16-35 f/4L IS to the 16-35 f/2.8L III is if it blows minds optically. I just don't see that happening give how damn good the f/4L IS is today.

I personally only see the 'first!' / 'gotta have the latest-greatest' crowd (i.e. very well-heeled enthusiasts) as those that would jump from the f/4L IS to the f/2.8L III. Pros are much more disciplined and segmented into using the right lens for the job. 

So I principally see the overhwhelmingly most-likely buyers of the 16-35 f/2.8L III as _all the people who are shooting with the 16-35 f/2.8L II today_. It's a straight upgrade for the sports/event crowd and that's that.

- A


----------



## Etienne (May 12, 2016)

mnclayshooter said:


> EEEP...
> 
> I was about 1 mouse click away from buying the f4 today at lunch when I saw this. Might be holding out a little bit. Some people will no-doubt unload their f4 to get the 2.8, I'd guess - even though they seem to be targeted to two slightly different crowds.



IS vs 1 stop is a tough call. I might go with the IS because of the handhold possibilities, and the stability in video. 
Probably going to sell my 16-35 f/2.8L II , but the choice between the f/4 IS and f/2.8 mkIII is a tough one if both have equal IQ


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

Etienne said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > EEEP...
> ...



It's not a straight trade of IS vs. one stop faster. There's also that little bit about the f/2.8 probably coming in around $1600-1800 vs. the $999 for the f/4L IS. 

I don't think it's a tough call at all. You _*need*_ f/2.8 or you don't. Spend accordingly. 

- A


----------



## Etienne (May 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



The EF-M 11-22 has IS .... and it is awesome


----------



## mnclayshooter (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > EEEP...
> ...



I think I'm generally in agreement... maybe it was inferred otherwise? In any case... my point was that there likely will be a few (note... a FEW for those who do get the GAS and the need for newest/best or think they need the 2.8) more used f4's showing up in the coming months. I'm making an upgrade from a terribly outdated tamron 17-35 2.8... good but not great... I've waited a long time, I can wait a month or two more.


----------



## Etienne (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > mnclayshooter said:
> ...



If camera equipment were sold on "need" alone, Canon would go broke.
"I want" makes Canon rich


----------



## Basil (May 12, 2016)

What pray tell is the most glaring weakness that this new lens solves?


----------



## M_S (May 12, 2016)

June would be great, July is too late for my trip though. Guess I can only hope they speed things up.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

Basil said:


> What pray tell is the most glaring weakness that this new lens solves?



There are well built UWA zoom lenses a fraction of the cost that are sharper -- that's the glaring weakness. It needs to be updated for sharpness.

If this is Canon's premiere sports/event lens (on the wide end at least), it needs to be modernized and show sharper results somewhere other than the frame center. This lens lives on the shoulders of the sideline sports reporter, the wedding photographer during the reception, etc. and one would presume it is overwhelmingly shot wide open*, so better wide open performance would certainly be appreciated.

* Please straighten me out if that assumption is inaccurate, I tried to find a flickr EXIF search to verify that, but I can't find one that will put numbers to it.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (May 12, 2016)

mnclayshooter said:


> I think I'm generally in agreement... maybe it was inferred otherwise? In any case... my point was that there likely will be a few (note... a FEW for those who do get the GAS and the need for newest/best or think they need the 2.8) more used f4's showing up in the coming months. I'm making an upgrade from a terribly outdated tamron 17-35 2.8... good but not great... I've waited a long time, I can wait a month or two more.



When the 16-35 f/4 IS came out, the prices of the used market for the 16-35 f/2.8 II dropped significantly. How much will the 16-35 f/2.8 III debut at? The 24-70 II and 100-400 II both started at 2000+. At that price, I can't see the 15-35 f/4 IS prices dropping much at all. Those that do upgrade from the II to the III will help push down the 16-35 f/2.8 II price in the used market.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I was pondering this the other day. Canon used to get a bad rap for their wide lenses. But these days, they have the most interesting, innovative, creative and capable wide lenses in their lens portfolio...more so than any other brand. The fish eye zoom 8-15L....unique and the last fisheye I'll ever need. The TS-e 17L...again unique and a fantastic optic. The new 11-24mm L is the widest rectilinear zoom lens ever made and again it's an amazing optic. The 16-35 LIS f4 has won a lot of hearts for it's impressive optical capability...so an f2.8 version should be very welcome too.
> ...



iffy??? The current 16-35IIL is fine for landscapes...I would know...I've taken enough of them. Most L lenses I've tried way outperform most of the people I've seen use them:






















There's nothing "iffy" about that lens...if you think there is...then you haven't been using it right.


----------



## ahsanford (May 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> There's nothing "iffy" about that lens...if you think there is...then you haven't been using it right.



Forgive me for not clarifying. It's "Iffy" from a sharpness perspective, and in fairness, that's a picky thing for me to say (but I'm surely not the only one who has said it here).

No one is saying you cannot render a great image with it. Lovely shots, btw, thanks for sharing. 

Can you give some more context on the sunstars you spoke of before? I love mine on the 16-35 f/4L IS -- what makes you such a fan of them on the f/2.8L II?

- A


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I think Canon were under pressure from Nikon. I've never seen the need for an IS on an ultra wide. If I'm shooting below 1/15th second...then I probably need a tripod and an IS unit is not substitute for a sturdy tripod. I'm regularly shooting at 30 seconds Plus exposure times. 
Here's a shot at 253 seconds:




This image is pixel sharp at 100%. While I understand that some here have other shooting needs...this and wedding work is why I use this lens.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing "iffy" about that lens...if you think there is...then you haven't been using it right.
> ...



No probs, and your welcome.
The sunstar is a cobination of stopping down to f16 / f22. But it's shape and number of points is dependent on the number of aperture blades inside the aperture diaphragm. Odd numbers double the sunstars, even numbers produce symetrical. The 16-35IIL has just the right number of blades to look great and full. The 16-35 f4 LIS and the 24-70IIL both have a higher number of blades and their sunstars look too congested and too full to use as easily.


----------



## Bobofango (May 12, 2016)

i enjoy doing astrophotography, especially northern light.

The coma distortion and image softness of the 16-35 mkii was a huge turnoff. So much so that I ended up going with the Tamron 15-30, instead of waiting for canon to play catchup to the third parties. Couldn't be happier! Especially after using it during the awesome G3 aurora storm of May 8th.

As for filters, there is an affordable 150x150mm holder from Haida on amazon. So for the price difference between the Tamron and Canon, I was able to put tHat towards a filter holder, + ND3.0 10stop filter + 0.9 graduated ND soft edge.


----------



## bseitz234 (May 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Just wanted to throw a sidenote into this side conversation, on one big variable between sunstars- the straighter the aperture blades are, the cleaner the sunstars are. Usually. I think. (I haven't really done a controlled test of my own, hence "think".) If an aperture has rounded blades, even when it gets stopped way down, it doesn't have as clearly defined vertices, and the sunstar won't be as pronounced, or at least as clearly defined. Apparently the 16-35 f/4 IS is sort of an exception to this rule, but I could actually see designing aperture blades that have a variable amount of rounding, so that if it's stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 you keep the rounded aperture, but by f/16 or f/22 you get straight sides and pronounced sunstars....


----------



## Rick (May 12, 2016)

I've been waiting on this lens for at least 10 years if not longer (assuming it is actually sharp at the edges and corners)but the 11-24L kicked it off my wish list. I don't even want to think about an f2.8 version of the 11-24L. For folks looking for low-light solutions, I am happy for you.


----------



## Skywise (May 12, 2016)

Oooooh... Do I sell my mkII now and assume the mkIII is that much better or wait...


----------



## wsmith96 (May 12, 2016)

Looks like Canon's getting its lens line-up ready for the 1dx2 and future new 5D. Looking forward to see the reviews for this one.


----------



## tphillips63 (May 12, 2016)

I'm sure it will be great. The current IS f/4 is for sure poaching sales over the current model. As details come out, I will most likely order it for sure. I really like the look of the current model but it is pretty soft as you all know.
I can't hardly believe it has been 9 years since it was released to great reviews.


----------



## Good24 (May 13, 2016)

Basil said:


> What pray tell is the most glaring weakness that this new lens solves?



Two words: chromatic abberation. (That's the weakness, no clue if it gets solved!)

That's been my experience anyway. Like others have said, it's great stopped down and great for starburst effect. It's even great, wide open, on a cloudy day. 

For me I doubt I'll get the III. I keep thinking about getting rid of the mark II but the upside just mentioned keeps me hanging on. I've used the 11-24 - way too big for me. I've used the TS 17mm and that would be my next, perhaps only additional wide angle I'd get. Although I do like this speculation about a blue goo 24 L III. And btw check out the image gallery for my recent Voigtlander 20mm samples - heck of a wide lens in a tiny package.


----------



## Bennymiata (May 13, 2016)

I really like my MkII and feel no need to update it.
I don't do many landscapes but I use it for real estate, product and events, where it does a really good job.
It has great colour and contrast, and NONE of my customers has ever complained about soft corners.

I won't be updating it anytime soon.


----------



## FECHariot (May 13, 2016)

They need to play these like the 70-200s. One at f4 with IS and one with out. One at 2.8 with IS and one without. Call the 17-40 good enough for the f4 without.


----------



## gjones5252 (May 13, 2016)

SOOO excited for this lens. 
I sold my 16-35 II about 7 months ago and i miss it so much. I virtually used that lens as a body cap for my camera. 
However once i received the 24-70 II and other newer lenses I stopped relying in that lens due to the fact that my images were so much sharper and cleaner in the other lens. 
This will with out a doubt be a purchase i make. I will buy this lens as soon as i can. Most lenses i wait for reviews, this one I will not.


----------



## Alan (May 13, 2016)

I'd much rather see 85mm f/1.2 III and 135mm f/1.8, not f/2. Time to challenge Sony.


----------



## Sabaki (May 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > EEEP...
> ...



Perhaps your rational does not apply to everyone.

I'm an amateur who has to carefully consider what I put into my bag and often compromises has to be made.

Definitely find the f/4.0 an amazing proposition but I'm probably going to plumb for the f/2.8 III instead. Why? Well, as compromises goes, the f/2.8 can go to f/2.8 and it gives me the option to do all 'scapes, including astro. From my personal point, I do my landscapes off a tripod so although I would love IS in all my lenses, it's very much a nice-to-have for my personal style.

I don't do many events but I'd happily settle for the success rate of a non IS 16-35 f/2.8. Judging by the excellent work I've seen.

That being said, I believe that there is a wide angle lens out there for all of us and we will take the option that best fits our personal circumstance.


----------



## romanr74 (May 13, 2016)

Krob78 said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > davidj said:
> ...



I'm in agreement with you there...


----------



## romanr74 (May 13, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



My (copy of the) lens is not corner sharp. For blurred water this might be no issue. For "architectural" work in my opinion it is. If trying to do corner sharp architectural work with the lens means not using it right then maybe i'm ok with your coment. Otherwise I guess I'm not. 

At the time the EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II came out, there were limited alternatives to it for my purpose. Today, the EF 16-35 f/4 IS and the EF 11-24 f/4 are valid alternatives. A corner sharp f/2.8 lens would still be nice... The current model does have flaws... CA being an other one to be mentioned...


----------



## romanr74 (May 13, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



In theory:
The 9 bladed (rounder) apertures are for better background blur. 
The 8 bladed apertures created nicer stars...


----------



## TheJock (May 13, 2016)

I just picked up a 16-35 f2.8 II plus the Canon timer for $800, both brand new condition!!!!
Interested in hearing about the mark 3!


----------



## d (May 13, 2016)

Stewart K said:


> I just picked up a 16-35 f2.8 II plus the Canon timer for $800, both brand new condition!!!!
> Interested in hearing about the mark 3!



Bargain!


----------



## H. Jones (May 13, 2016)

This is where I wish Canon would make a 16-35mm f/2.8 IS. I love my 16-35mm F/4 IS for video, handheld long exposures, and for how sharp it is, but as a photojournalist I wish I could use it more in low light/fast action. Typically I'm fine with my 24-70mm f/2.8 for those situations, but it would be a nice way to mix up my shots. I'm not keen on having two 16-35mm lenses though, so I'm not sure a F/2.8 III would be able to convince me to drop my F/4 IS and the unique handheld long exposure shots it offers.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> Perhaps your rational does not apply to everyone.
> 
> I'm an amateur who has to carefully consider what I put into my bag and often compromises has to be made.
> 
> ...



I appreciate your post. For a long time, Canon offered a good lens and a great lens for a lot more money. Amateurs/enthusiasts like us weighed each decision carefully and often went for the pricier lens because it was clearly the best -- the sharpest, fastest focusing, best built, etc. This also gave photographers a sense of future-proofing the purchase for long-term ownership or resale considerations.

However, of late, I would contend that Canon is taking the traditional 'best' market position and splitting it's L market into more specialized tools. Consider the UWA zoom lineup:

8-15 f/4L --> fishbowl for a jillion nutty little needs 
11-24 f/4L --> architecture (and people with ultra-ultra-utra-wide addiction)
16-35 f/4L IS --> landscape and video
16-35 f/2.8L II or III --> events, sports, and possibly astro (if coma pans out)

So, it's less a matter of 'what is best' and more a matter of _'what is best for you'_. You clearly are thinking that through, but I would argue that the 16-35 f/2.8L III being the top dog for all UWA needs is unlikely to occur. 

- A


----------



## Skywise (May 13, 2016)

I like to take a lot of night video of landscapes (Think vegas strip, fireworks, night concerts, etc) I've got the F2.8 II which I'm using on a 6D that I've used to get some great videos BUT in most cases I can't use a tripod as I'm walking around, slowly and steadily but not enough to overcome image jitter and hand movement. (Part of this is the heaviness of the camera + lens as I didn't have this problem as much with the much lighter T4i and 10-22)

The IS should overcome some of that but will I lose much with the lighting sensitivity at F4 vs F2.8 in terms of video performance?


----------



## retroreflection (May 13, 2016)

I think Canon's decision to skip IS in fast wide angle lenses is due to a combination of technical and application reasons. Technical challenges have been discussed.
What do I mean by application challenges? Fast telephoto lenses see significant use in sports and wildlife. Daylight shooting, in fractions of a second, is a great fit for IS. If you have little light so your exposures approach seconds, IS becomes ineffective. But, because the typical application has a mobile subject filling much of the frame, you would say the shot didn't work because of subject motion. The IS system would not be blamed for such a failure.
Now go for a wide angle lens. Daylight shots, fractions of a second, probably stopping down to limit the light anyhow, IS works great. Dark shots, maybe showing people on a concert stage where motion blur in the people is fine, but the architecture should be sharp. Exposure approaches seconds, IS is helpless if you move an inch. But, you spent all that money on this lens, the shot isn't sharp, must be Canon's fault.
If I am right that a fast wide lens is way more likely to be used and judged in situations where IS can't overcome typical photographer motion, then it is reasonable for Canon to not make the lens. In a totally reasonable world customers could listen to the arguments against, then say "We understand, but want one lens for all of these applications. We won't expect it to work for really long exposures." The world isn't totally reasonable.


----------



## scyrene (May 14, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Lovely landscape shots, but from what I've read (and it's been mentioned here), it's the sharpness of the 16-35 f/2.8L II *wide open* that people would like improved. If you're shooting landscapes stopped way down, that won't be of relevance - and at f/16-22, diffraction becomes a dominant factor in sharpness. I guess people using this lens for events, wide open, are the ones who'd benefit most from an upgraded version.


----------



## romanr74 (May 14, 2016)

scyrene said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



This is not the case (for my copy). Even stopped down I have mushy corners. This "ruined" one of my lifetime compositions...


----------



## Ozarker (May 14, 2016)

Stewart K said:


> I just picked up a 16-35 f2.8 II plus the Canon timer for $800, both brand new condition!!!!
> Interested in hearing about the mark 3!



Wow! Great find!


----------



## Ozarker (May 14, 2016)

I think the Mark III will debut for $2k+. It will have the blue goo.


----------



## sweebee (May 15, 2016)

Nice to hear, love my 16-35 2.8 II. Use it at around 2.8-4 at events and more than sharp enough. Soft in the far corners, but very sharp in the middle. On 5.6-8 its very sharp in my opinion.

For astro it would be great to have more sharpness in the edges on 2.8. But I don't see any sharpness difference in the middle on F2.8 and F8.

Corners f2.8 vs f8: https://i.imgur.com/SzEDpVT.png


----------



## Rick (May 17, 2016)

Basil said:


> What pray tell is the most glaring weakness that this new lens solves?



Hopefully, V. II's poor edge/corner performance.


----------



## adventureous (May 18, 2016)

Rick said:


> Basil said:
> 
> 
> > What pray tell is the most glaring weakness that this new lens solves?
> ...



What Rick said plus it's uncanny ability for sun glare (different from sun flare) If the sun is directly behind you and the camera, if you swing the camera 1 inch left or right from center, you will have sun glare in the photo. I may be exaggerating a little, but only a little. I hope the new lens coatings will tame that down a lot.


----------



## mnclayshooter (May 18, 2016)

;D From my experience, when the sun is right behind you, with the wide angle lenses... you see your own shadow in the frame.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 19, 2016)

adventureous said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Basil said:
> ...



???
I found the 16-35IIL to be the least flare / glare lens in my lens bag. I'm sure the newer coating will improve this even further. With an ultra wide lens it's harder to exclude over bright elements in the frame, such as street lights, the moon or the sun. I have seen a few odd ghostings where there's a really bright object in the frame. But that's down to internal reflections and the 16-35IIL is a lot better than any other wide lenses I've tried. Certainly better than the 17-40L and Tamron 16-35mm dii. Way better than the 24-70L and 24-70IIL.


----------



## Ryan_D (Jun 18, 2016)

Any more rumblings about this lens? Crossing my fingers that we will get official word on it any day now


----------

