# Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 21, 2016)

```
<p>Roger at Lensrentals.com has completed his bench test of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III wide angle zoom lens. It looks like the lens performance is the new pinnacle for wide angle zoom lenses and you should probably go ahead and buy one!</p>
<p>From Roger:</p>
<blockquote><p>This summary is quick and simple. From a resolution standpoint, the <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/canon-16-35mm-f2.8l-iii" target="_blank">Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 Mk III</a> is the best f/2.8 wide-angle zoom available. You might be better served with the f/4 IS and some money in your pocket. There are also some very good wide-angle f/2.8 zooms available from third party manufacturers that are a lot less expensive and might offer more bang-for-the-buck. But if your style of photography needs the highest resolution you can get with a wide-angle lens, well this is it. I don’t use a wide-angle zoom all that often, but when I do, it will be this one. <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/10/canon-16-35mm-f2-8l-mark-iii-optical-bench-tests/">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>It looks like the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III is in stock across most retailers.</p>
<p>Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III: <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="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f-2-8l-iii-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 21, 2016)

I read Rogers article earlier today. It sounds like a stellar lens. I had the MK II version, but never really used it. I don't think I had a sharpness issue, just that its not the type of use I need. 

I've stopped buying lenses just because they are the best of the best, and just purchase what gets used. But, if I used those focal lengths in low light, its a definite lens to get.


----------



## pcho (Oct 22, 2016)

Thanks Roger for your comprehensive review. Confirms my own little brick wall test. I tested at F2.8 against the Ziess 15mm at 15mm and at f2.8 and I cannot separate the two in my brick wall test for sharpness. It's just that good


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 22, 2016)

I hate to rain on Canon parade, (this does look good) BUT.. and this is a rather big but...

We might be going down a blind ally with this "sharp in the corners" approach.

There's a link in the comments to Rogers excellent review showing:

*4 stops of vignetting*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1073&Camera=979&LensComp=412

Now if this is the way that manufacturers are going to be getting "sharp in the corners" (i.e. turn the lens into a pinhole lens by that point) then for things like astro it's fairly pointless.

i'll freely admit that this is not what you buy for astro work, ideally you get a manual focus wide aperture prime lens, you put all the money where it matters. But it still leaves the question.

Personally I'd like to see a new metric:

Sharpness vs Corner aperture. 

in this lens case, it works out as F11, which is not what I'd call wide in the slightest.. (you're going to need the 5DIV higher DR if you want to correct that without visible noise in the corners.), my ancient and soft 28f1.8 has only 2 stops of vignetting, as does the 16-35f4IS so:

*The 16-35 F4 is wider in the corners than this new F2.8

*http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1073&Camera=979&LensComp=949
now that's not something I would have expected


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 22, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> [...]
> 
> in this lens case, it works out as F11, which is not what I'd call wide in the slightest.. (you're going to need the 5DIV higher DR if you want to correct that without visible noise in the corners.), my ancient and soft 28f1.8 has only 2 stops of vignetting, as does the 16-35f4IS so:
> 
> ...



(1) Others neglect distortion and let it stay at 5% while correcting it in camera for the jpgs ... IMO vignetting is a little bit easier to correct while preserving contrast and sharpness - especially with modern high DR sensors where lifting the edges doesn't increase noise too much.
Dont't misunderstand me: A f/2.0 16-35 IS with 1 stop vignetting wide open, extraordinary sharpness and IS for 2000 EUR would be welcome ... 

(2) Compare both lenses at f/4: same amount of vignetting! I think one has to compare both situations.

If someone needs the f/2.8 for overview portraits AND corner sharpness for landscape/architecture - maybe this is a "one lens for both"-approach at a premium price ...


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 22, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I read Rogers article earlier today. It sounds like a stellar lens. I had the MK II version, but never really used it. I don't think I had a sharpness issue, just that its not the type of use I need.
> 
> I've stopped buying lenses just because they are the best of the best, and just purchase what gets used. But, if I used those focal lengths in low light, its a definite lens to get.



The same here: I am more on the "tele side", 40mm is wide and 24mm is WIIIIIIDE for me. So I will live with the EF-S 10-22 on the EOS M classic if I need an ultrawide. 16-35 isn't too interesting for me and I would choose the f/4.0 16-35 if I would go into ultrawide on a more or less regular basis.

About "buying lenses just because they are the best of the best": When I was in that mood I hadn't the money, when I had the money I hadn't the time to use them. For WHAT I DO I am really satisfied with two EOS5D classics and some unspectacular fix focals like 2.8 24 (old), 2.8 40, 2.0 100, 2.8 100 macro (USM, non-IS) + the great f/4.0 70-200 non-IS. All these lenses match the resolution of the 5D classic easily + operating the 5D classic is really simple and fun.

But Kudos to Canon for doing what is possible and creating instruments which may lead to exceptional photos in the right hands for the right purposes!
But please, Canon, think about creating a f/4.0 40-200 or 50-200 in the tradition of the great f/4.0 70-200 zooms - that would be a reason to invest again in Canon glass.


----------



## MichaelG (Oct 22, 2016)

I shoot most with a wide angle lens and I was sure to replace the 16-35 II once the "III" is available. But 4-stop vignetting is absolutely not acceptable. The vignetting correction of the "II" now creates visible noise so that I usually don't correct. 4-stop is even worse. I think I wait for Version "IV".


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 22, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> I hate to rain on Canon parade, (this does look good) BUT.. and this is a rather big but...
> 
> We might be going down a blind ally with this "sharp in the corners" approach.
> 
> ...



Vignetting at f/4 is about the same between the 16-35 f/2.8 III and 16-35 f/4 IS. You can use it at f/4 and get slightly better IQ than the f/4 without the IS and a higher price, or you can chose to use f/2.8 and live with the increased vignetting.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 22, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> I hate to rain on Canon parade, (this does look good) BUT.. and this is a rather big but...
> 
> We might be going down a blind ally with this "sharp in the corners" approach.
> 
> ...



Even on the Mark IV there is still some noise that has been created in the corners after correction. Not bad, but very obvious when comparing the Tamron 15-30 after correction. It's only one copy of each, obviously, but while the Canon has a sharpness advantage in the middle at 16mm vs. 15mm, the Tamron (at least my copy) is clearly sharper in the corners.


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 22, 2016)

According to TDP, Canon 11-24 F4 L equally dark in the extreme coners @11mm and F4 compared to the canon 16-35 F2.8 III wide open and @16mm. That does not stop the lens from being one of the most desirable ultra wide angle zoom lens. I suspect that Canon sacrificed light transmission in extreme corners in order to preserve corner sharpness and avoid bulging front element.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=977&CameraComp=453&FLI=0&API=0


----------



## davidmurray (Oct 22, 2016)

Thanks for the review.

I am very tempted to get this lens, but it's a question of what to do first - to replace my car or buy this new lens.

I think I'll wait a little while to see the general reaction regarding the vignetting issue and then decide on 2.8 without IS or 4 with IS.


----------



## fish_shooter (Oct 22, 2016)

Much of the light fall off is due to the cosine to the fourth power rule. There is probably some mechanical and optical vignetting as well - a result of keeping the front filter size as small as 82mm and having a large maximum aperture for this angle of view.


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 22, 2016)

fish_shooter said:


> Much of the light fall off is due to the cosine to the fourth power rule.



Go on.. I feel like I should know this but I can't seem to drag up why we're taking the fourth power of a cosine.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 23, 2016)

fish_shooter said:


> Much of the light fall off is due to the cosine to the fourth power rule. There is probably some mechanical and optical vignetting as well - a result of keeping the front filter size as small as 82mm and having a large maximum aperture for this angle of view.



The prior 16-35 f/2.8L II is also 82mm and it's a stop better when shot wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1073&Camera=979&LensComp=412

So that's not (entirely) it. Something else is at work here.

- A


----------



## fish_shooter (Oct 23, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> fish_shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Much of the light fall off is due to the cosine to the fourth power rule.
> ...



It is an optical fundamental - the mathematical relationship describing light falloff of a lens.


----------



## fish_shooter (Oct 23, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> fish_shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Much of the light fall off is due to the cosine to the fourth power rule. There is probably some mechanical and optical vignetting as well - a result of keeping the front filter size as small as 82mm and having a large maximum aperture for this angle of view.
> ...



This is something that Canon will have to tell us. You could mount your copy of the Mk III lens in a lathe and cut off the front parts that hold the lens shade and filter mounts and see if vignetting is reduced ;->> 

For now you have a choice: 1 stop less light fall off or a sharper lens. Lens design is all about compromise.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 23, 2016)

fish_shooter said:


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



With the TDP comparison tool, you can choose 16mm and a UV-filter attached. The filter ring (on the filter itself) has the potential to add to the vignetting, but in this case, the negative effect is small to my eye. Thus, the front parts doesn't seem to be the explanation. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1073&CameraComp=979&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0 

Maybe the coatings are causing much of the vignette?


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 23, 2016)

In order to achieve the maximum corner sharpness as well as centre sharpness the focal plane has to be totally flat. Unfortunately flat focal plane results in extreme loss of light in the corners. Increased focal plane curvature results in brighter corners and decreased corner sharpness as a side effect... This is my understanding of why the older lens was brighter in the corners than the new one.


ahsanford said:


> fish_shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Much of the light fall off is due to the cosine to the fourth power rule. There is probably some mechanical and optical vignetting as well - a result of keeping the front filter size as small as 82mm and having a large maximum aperture for this angle of view.
> ...


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 23, 2016)

fish_shooter said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > fish_shooter said:
> ...



ok, I've got my head straight on this, and it isn't quite a fundamental. It's close because it's based on the principle of illuminating a circular aperture from an angle, i.e. at 90 degrees you get nought, straight on you get 100% and in between you get something that is described by the cos^4 rule.

Of course if you have "streering" lenses in front and behind the limiting element then the rules change, in theory you could mitigate the effect to some extent.

Calculating what you get from a 16mm focal length lens on a full frame camera, the "field of view" on the outside of the lens is greater than inside the camera body.. so using the wider FOV (to be fair) we get 2.7 stops of vignetting.

On an 11mm optic you get 4 stops of vignetting.

Well that's what I got and I'm still fumbling around this, if someone wants to correct please go ahead


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 23, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> fish_shooter said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



Just stumbled over your remark about steering lenses (you ment that? I am a non-native writer ...): If you look at the aperture of an ultrawide and change the angle you see a strange behaviour: The aperture looks near circular from about 50° while a lens cap (as model for a simple circular hole) seems to be a flat ellipse ... just to back up your idea of steering lenses. Putting a light source on the back of the lens helps to see the effect. I just checked it during writing on my "poor mans ultra wide", the EF-S 10-22.

About light fall of observed on a circular hole: It should be the same like that of a square hole and I see only a simple cosine rule. I think the dramatic fall off is due to sensor reflectivity - but here too bending the light is helpful by other steering groups which try to reduce the angle of incidence.

More math is not possible at the moment after creating some examination questions in mathematics ...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 23, 2016)

Attached is an unscientific test I did at the Canon roadshow this weekend.
Opened in LR, with standard adobe conversion
Converted to black & white 
Exported to TIF 
(Bucketfill and text edits were done in GIMP.

Center brightness is 48.0% (roughly the same color as mid-tone patch on colorchecker)
Corner brightness is 14.2% (roughly the same color as the black patch on colorchecker)


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 23, 2016)

A little sidenote regarding the vignette. The Zeiss 15mm f2.8 for DSLRs seems to be almost as bad at f2.8, tested on a Nikon at Photozone.de:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/988-zeisszf1528ff?start=1


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 23, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Attached is an unscientific test I did at the Canon roadshow this weekend.
> Opened in LR, with standard adobe conversion
> Converted to black & white
> Exported to TIF
> ...



it's worth checking the variance of the signal in the corners vs the centre

If canon add no processing then the variance will be correct for the signal level, if they "correct" it even marginally it will show up.

Also I've seen conflicting results for vignetting on lenses between sites. I don't know why this should be except for good honest foul ups, but I've seen almost a 2:1 variation in vignetting results.


Roger (if you're reading this): could you add a quick and dirty vignetting test to lenses on their own?. then we remove the camera from the equation.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 23, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Attached is an unscientific test I did at the Canon roadshow this weekend.
> ...



Photozone will run vignetting when they get the lens. They are 90%-ish likely to review staple zooms like this.

- A


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 23, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



but they still test it on a camera, although I agree their testing always seems pretty good, I know roger tests the lenses on their own, I beleive he's the only one to do so.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 24, 2016)

Here is a series of images that show peripheral illumination: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7a8yp018bb45x9c/AAAAG1f1Gjrc_7nFNIuHjxpna?dl=0&lst=

Not exactly a flat field with the 16-35mm shots. There is a bit of light spilling into the frame from the top right. I included a reference shot at 16mm f/8 which highlights this spill light. I also included a decent flat frame taken with the 35L II at f/1.4.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 24, 2016)

This lens sums up exactly what Canon stands for in 2016: very high priced, very good specialized products. 

Unfortunately if you are an allrounder, and want to just pay high prices for just good products, Canon does not have solutions for you: even as an owner of 16-35/2.8III, 16-35/4 and 11-24/4 I tend to use the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC instead most of the times, because it's the only 2.8 VC and it's all in one lens.

Same situation with cameras: the new Sony A99II could replace the 1DX2, 5D4 and 5DsR which you will need if you want to shoot high MP and fast fps. Very often, with Canon you need to buy 2-3 as many products to get versatile jobs done, as they intentionally don't release equipment that can do everything. And even if spending 2-3x the money wouldn't be the problem, logistics will be because nobody wants to carry 2-3x more items than necessary.

My suggestion to Canon is: I know you need to make money. But then at least do it like you did it with the 1DC, and release an ultra-expensive version of needed products so that at least it exists - like in this case a very sharp 16-35/2.8 WITH stabilization. Also, nobody would complain if you would also release a 14-24/2.8. Release a 14-24/2.8 IS and it would be a killer, and also fit in the lineup. As Nikon starts to charge insanely crazy prices, you could charge 4000 bucks for it and nobody would even be surprised anymore.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 24, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Very often, with Canon you need to buy 2-3 as many products to get versatile jobs done, as they intentionally don't release equipment that can do everything. And even if spending 2-3x the money wouldn't be the problem, logistics will be because nobody wants to carry 2-3x more items than necessary.



Bwhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahha! :

Um, yeah. Canon sabotages itself committing harakiri with the product line. :

Sony is the answer. :

Quick! Somebody get that A99 II down off that cross!

Back in Kansas now. I want this new Canon lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> This lens sums up exactly what Canon stands for in 2016: very high priced, very good specialized products.
> 
> Unfortunately if you are an allrounder, and want to just pay high prices for just good products, Canon does not have solutions for you: even as an owner of 16-35/2.8III, 16-35/4 and 11-24/4 I tend to use the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC instead most of the times, because it's the only 2.8 VC and it's all in one lens.



Disagree. Again, someone has judged the all-around usefulness of a zoom based on two questions: 


Is it f/2.8?
Does it have IS?

There's more to it than that. Do you enjoy putting an ND or CPL on that Tamron? Because one would think an 'allrounder' might have that functionality.

Consider what the dream UWA zoom might be:


Some folks want wider than 16mm
Some folks want f/2.8
Some folks want IS
Some folks want coma free performance
Some folks want light weight
Some folks want front filter threads and to employ standard 4x4 / 4x6 landscape filters

And it's quite clear you can't put all of those things into one lens.

Our needs vary. Canon fully understands this, and that's why they didn't chase the squirrel and do what Tamron did. You cannot satisfy the masses with a single ultrawide lens, _so it gave us three_. I am ecstatic with my 16-35 f/4L IS as I do not have to suffer through the weight and filtering house of horrors going faster than f/4 or wider than 16mm brings about.

- A


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 24, 2016)

fish_shooter said:


> Much of the light fall off is due to the cosine to the fourth power rule. There is probably some mechanical and optical vignetting as well - a result of keeping the front filter size as small as 82mm and having a large maximum aperture for this angle of view.



No not really....the previous 16-35IIL also had an 82mm front element, and f2.8 aperture and had a lot less vignetting.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > This lens sums up exactly what Canon stands for in 2016: very high priced, very good specialized products.
> ...



Lightweight is not a factor with any of the Canon lens options, as there is no lightweight fullframe camera. Even the 16-35/4 IS with a 5D4 is alreasy so big and heavy, that there is not much of a difference to a 5D4 with a Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC. Lightweight would be a Sony A7R2 with a 10-18/4, which also works as a 12-16mm fullframe lense.

While you can't add sharpness or stabilization to a lens that doesn't have it, you can add external filter systems. Not convenient, but in terms of vignetting and placement of gradient filters much better anyway.

A 16-35/2.8III - especially for the price!!! - would have deserved IS. I just bought a tiny Panasonic GX85 camera with sensor stabilisation that stabilizes better than anything Canon has ever built. I don't think sensor stabilization in the new III version would have made the lens extremely bulky, or that it was technically impossible. The main problem for Canon is that all people who would buy a 16-35/2.8 IS now, might never have to buy any new similar wide angle zoom again, which will hurt their profits. This is why their internal roadmap for sure will include a 16-35/2.8 IS in the coming 2-4 years, and they also know how to build it.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 24, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Very often, with Canon you need to buy 2-3 as many products to get versatile jobs done, as they intentionally don't release equipment that can do everything. And even if spending 2-3x the money wouldn't be the problem, logistics will be because nobody wants to carry 2-3x more items than necessary.
> ...



Canon's big business problem is that all the millions of people who bought a Rebel and now own a smartphone don't see why they should buy any new DSLR. The worst thing for them would be to release pro cameras and lenses that already include all relevant timeless features, so that pros never will upgrade for decades instead of upgrading every few years. This is why a 16-35/2.8 is missing IS, and why the 1DX2 and 5D4 are missing several other modern and simple features.

Canon's paranoia is so big, that with the 5DsR they even released the first fullframe video autofocus camera, without mentioning it anywhere - just because someone could have thought it might be the perfect allround camera for photo AND video, leading to less sales for their video product department.

It's Canon's right to act like this - but it's also the right of Canon users who are heavily invested in their products to tell them that they will lose credibility and money for these obvious politics.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 24, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Canon's big business problem is that all the millions of people who bought a Rebel and now own a smartphone don't see why they should buy any new DSLR. The worst thing for them would be to release pro cameras and lenses that already include all relevant timeless features, so that pros never will upgrade for decades instead of upgrading every few years. This is why a 16-35/2.8 is missing IS, and why the 1DX2 and 5D4 are missing several other modern and simple features.
> 
> Canon's paranoia is so big, that with the 5DsR they even released the first fullframe video autofocus camera, without mentioning it anywhere - just because someone could have thought it might be the perfect allround camera for photo AND video, leading to less sales for their video product department.
> 
> It's Canon's right to act like this - but it's also the right of Canon users who are heavily invested in their products to tell them that they will lose credibility and money for these obvious politics.



The issue is that you're barking up the wrong tree if you think posting to this forum is an efficient channel in providing feedback to Canon.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 24, 2016)

I will never likely purchase the EF 16-35mm f2.8L III as I shoot mainly landscape at f11 where I can. 
For those that cannot afford the over double price for this lens the EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM is a brilliant lens and in real world shooting your hardly see any difference judging by the MTF figures Lens Rentals supplied.


----------



## M_S (Oct 24, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



Presuming that the customers buy it anyway, making this a multiple dip for the company. But since there are options on the market, one can give the money to other companies. Or staying with the current gear. Either way, its not like Canon is the only company out there and one is forced to buy their stuff. 
Sharpnes in this lens seems to be great, the vignetting seems to be a problem though. For me that is, before that neuro stupid idiot (thx Chris Jerico) comes to the rescue again...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> I will never likely purchase the EF 16-35mm f2.8L III as I shoot mainly landscape at f11 where I can.
> For those that cannot afford the over double price for this lens the EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM is a brilliant lens and in real world shooting your hardly see any difference judging by the MTF figures Lens Rentals supplied.



100% agree. If you solely shoot (non-astro) landscapes, buying this lens is tantamount to throwing $1,200 (and image stabilization) in the trash.

- A


----------



## j-nord (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > I will never likely purchase the EF 16-35mm f2.8L III as I shoot mainly landscape at f11 where I can.
> ...



I agree as well, for non-astro landscapes, the 16-35 f4 is a no brainer. Even though I was hoping this lens would be a 1 UWA lens solution for me, the severe vignetting for astro + price are making me re-think. The lens would mostly get used for non-astro landscape where the IS, smaller size, lower weight, lower price, are all worth more than a very marginal improvement in sharpness.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 25, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's big business problem is that all the millions of people who bought a Rebel and now own a smartphone don't see why they should buy any new DSLR. The worst thing for them would be to release pro cameras and lenses that already include all relevant timeless features, so that pros never will upgrade for decades instead of upgrading every few years. This is why a 16-35/2.8 is missing IS, and why the 1DX2 and 5D4 are missing several other modern and simple features.
> ...



He's simply transcribing the telepathic messages he sends to Canon engineers and product managers. Problem is, that cell tower is down.

As far as the weight claim goes: 5D Mark IV = 31.4oz Sony A99 II = 29.9oz.

If that makes any difference to anyone, God help'em. But he likes to use the Tamron lens (which I also have) so it is equal there. 1.5oz difference. Wait. What does that lens adapter weigh? 

Maybe the Sony lenses are lighter. They aren't as good as Canon's.

I think Mr. Laurent's paranoia is made evident in his above description of the 5DSr and Canon fearing anyone would think it is the perfect all around camera for stills and video.: Nuts.

In the real world, nothing is perfect... except Sony.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 25, 2016)

People here seem to assume that nobody at Canon does care about this website and the forum. That has to be either wrong, or it is correct and would make Canon look stupid as they would not check out social media in the year 2016 for feedback - especially when it's probably the world's best and fastest source for Canon product leaks.

Both ways would prove my points of a) the expectation that they are aware of what is said here, or b) that they are lame and ignorant and don't know what's really going on among many users.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 25, 2016)

I would think that less then 1% of canon users post on this forum (sure, I'm making numbers up) Either way, in my opinion, the posters on this forum are probably seen as a pretty niche market compared to the over all sales. I only know a few canon photographers, but not one of them has visited a canon forum.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 25, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> People here seem to assume that nobody at Canon does care about this website and the forum. That has to be either wrong, or it is correct and would make Canon look stupid as they would not check out social media in the year 2016 for feedback - especially when it's probably the world's best and fastest source for Canon product leaks.
> 
> Both ways would prove my points of a) the expectation that they are aware of what is said here, or b) that they are lame and ignorant and don't know what's really going on among many users.



It is safe to say that Canon does not make market decisions based on this website OR the product information leaks.

Canon certainly doesn't follow the rants like: "I would advise Canon to..." Or, "If Canon would listen to my ideas, Canon wouldn't be so lame."

Certainly you live in Alice's Wonderland.

Sony is the answer. :


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 25, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> I would think that less then 1% of canon users post on this forum (sure, I'm making numbers up) Either way, in my opinion, the posters on this forum are probably seen as a pretty niche market compared to the over all sales. I only know a few canon photographers, but not one of them has visited a canon forum.



Exactly correct. Probably even less than .1%.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > I would think that less then 1% of canon users post on this forum (sure, I'm making numbers up) Either way, in my opinion, the posters on this forum are probably seen as a pretty niche market compared to the over all sales. I only know a few canon photographers, but not one of them has visited a canon forum.
> ...



But we're _so bright_... They should take our posts super seriously.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Ryananthony said:
> ...



   Self important at the least.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 25, 2016)

It's a simple fact that as a tool becomes more specialist then it's application becomes more limited. The most general of all professional lenses is the 24-70 f2.8 II L. It's the most versatile, but at the same time, it's not a master of anything specific. Compare that to say a 100mm IS L macro. It's a very good macro lens...but it's not very versatile. Compare that again with the 180L macro, which is a very specific macro lens and it becomes even less versatile in other genres. 
I've never seen a "one lens" does it all in the wide / ultra wide focal lengths. I've often said that there are three wide lenses that are needed for most situations. 1st, a really good general ultra wide (16-35 f4/f2.8 is doesn't matter). But it needs to be very versatile. Then 2nd a really good fisheye...we all love them when used sparingly. The 8-15L is the last fisheye anyone could ever want. Then a well corrected rectilinear architecture lens for all the things that need straight lines. A 14IIL is a good example, so is the TSe 17L or 11-24L. 
With those three wide lenses then there is little that you can't cover in terms of subject matter. Maybe add a 24IIL for low light f1.4 work....but do you see my point? You can't get a lens to be general purpose AND be specific purpose at the same time. You can't get a lens that is both fish eye and rectilinear corrected in one unit. 
With my wedding work, I take f2.8 zooms for when it's too bright for f1.2 and f1.4 lenses. If I have to shoot at f4...then I might as well use zooms for the versatility. If it's a bit darker and I can keep the shutter speed under 1/8000th sec...then I break out the fast prime kit bag.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 26, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > People here seem to assume that nobody at Canon does care about this website and the forum. That has to be either wrong, or it is correct and would make Canon look stupid as they would not check out social media in the year 2016 for feedback - especially when it's probably the world's best and fastest source for Canon product leaks.
> ...



So you say that a) Canon will not listen to any user feedback, or b) Canon will only listen to some random users from some random sources, but definitely not and never the biggest Canon social media websites, although they will include the most honest and unfiltered opinions?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> So you say that a) Canon will not listen to any user feedback, or b) Canon will only listen to some random users from some random sources, but definitely not and never the biggest Canon social media websites, although they will include the most honest and unfiltered opinions?



All companies listen to all the feedback they can, but some people's feedback is much more important than others. This is because some feedback is more objective/demonstrable/incontrovertible (i.e. Canon sales, Canon's own quality feeder systems -- complaints, recalls, CAPA, scrap rates, etc.), some feedback is more influential (i.e. Explorers of Light, respected reviewers, big-ticket CPS professionals) and some feedback is more representative of a larger swath of the market (i.e. not gear obsessives in an internet forum).

So yes, collectively we know a great deal about gear and have some nice thoughts and ideas, but we are not remotely the market as a whole. We are a very small slice of it. Canon would be wise to listen to us, but I reeeeally hope they have other sources. 

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 26, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



No, I am saying we are the random sources and that our influence is very near zero. Look up random. One doesn't make decisions based on random sources that are nameless, faceless, and may not even own a single Canon product. There are probably many people on this site who don't own what they say they own.

One only needs to look at the flippy screen controversy as an example: People claiming their noses change the settings have never used the product. I have a pretty long schnoz. No settings ever changed on the 70D I owned because of my nose.

Another example: There are people who said that touch screens have no business on a pro level camera. Canon would never do that. It's just a toy if it has a touch screen. Blah, blah, blah.

They were saying such things just a year ago. Now look at the 1Dx Mark II and the 5D Mark IV. Both have a touch screen. Where did those experts go? Was Canon listening to them? No. Canon listened to the market as a whole and decided the market wanted touch screens. Now, not nary a one of those forum product development experts is opening his mouth.

Most honest and unfiltered opinions? Pfhhttttt! There are very few experts here. There are zero unfiltered opinions (Look up the difference in definition between opinion and truth.). I am wise enough to admit that Canon would have no business listening to me. Every opinion I have is filtered and so are yours based on what you the individual want... not what the market will support.

Canon doesn't care about opinions of the haunters of social media sites like this. People that cannot even agree whether or not a camera is good or bad (Many times without even owning or using the product) make sites like this a piss poor place from which to make market decisions. 

Canon cares about what is going to make Canon the most money. They don't care what I prefer, nor is anyone at Canon waiting to hear or read what Doug Laurent has to say about anything. Neither you nor I, pal, are that important. If either of us think so, then we truly have unrealistically grandiose opinions of ourselves and should check into a mental ward.

There isn't some guy in Japan looking at this website saying, "My God, we'd better get to making what these people (who have trouble agreeing on much at all) on this website want."

Personally, Doug, I have a Swiss Army knife. It isn't worth a darn. It has all the little tools in one small package, but almost none of them are any good for much.

For the record: I did not say that Canon would not listen to any user feedback. Canon just doesn't care about mine or yours individually. It is the market as a whole whose opinion matters. That and specific users selected by Canon that have earned Canon's respect. Not numskulls like us who mostly don't have enough knowledge or the wear with all to have a significantly informed market opinion on how to run a multinational company and know the direction product development should be taking.

Profit, market share, and sales are what matter most. These added to together = satisfied customers.

The greatest of these is profit.

So if you think that by posting on this website that you have a direct conduit to Canon's product development ear, and that Canon is waiting to read what you have to say, you are sorely mistaken. Delusional even.

This website is mostly entertainment; and I'd like to thank you personally for being so entertaining.

Sure, we all have the right to voice our opinions. Just don't start thinking Canon is waiting to read what you have to say and the CEO or anyone else is going to yell, "Yoshi! Get on it!"


----------

