# EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II Replacement [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 30, 2015)

```
We reported previously that the next “L” lens from Canon would be a prime. We don’t know the focal length, but the 35mm f/1.4 is the likeliest candidate for replacement.</p>
<p>Canon hasn’t released an f/2.8 zoom since the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, but that could be changing some time in the next year. We’re told An f/2.8 replacement for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II is likely and that the focal length could change slightly, something like an EF 15-35 f/2.8L was suggested.</p>
<p>If you look at the lineage of the current lens, it has changed focal lengths a couple of times. The first in the line was the EF 20-35 f/2.8L and then the EF 17-35 f/2.8L and most recently two version of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L</p>
<p>Event photographers still crave the fastest lens possible for the job, and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II could use a performance refresh.</p>
<p>I don’t expect such a lens to arrive any time soon, as the manufacturing demands of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II and EF 11-24 f/4L probably won’t be quelled for quite some time yet.</p>
```


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 30, 2015)

Interesting.

But let's wait until the [CR2] comes around the corner - with or without IS


----------



## pwp (Mar 30, 2015)

The relatively recent 24-70 f/2.8II missed out on IS so I'd be surprised to see it on a 16-35 f/2.8II replacement due to cost issues. I'd welcome this lens with or without IS. The current 16-35 f/2.8II is a modest performer, though some photographers are fortunate enough to have great copies. 15mm at the wide end would also be welcome, just so long as screw-on filters were still an option (82mm?)

-pw


----------



## niels123 (Mar 30, 2015)

Zeiss has a 15mm f/2.8 prime. It uses 95mm filters so I think a 15-35 f/2.8 will not be easily made with "only" 82mm filters. I also think that a 15-35 will me much more expensive than a 16-35.


----------



## pwp (Mar 30, 2015)

niels123 said:


> I also think that a 15-35 will me much more expensive than a 16-35.


Based on recent EF releases, you can be pretty sure of that.

-pw


----------



## tron (Mar 30, 2015)

If the front element remains flat and the coma is non-existent it will be my dream astro lens...


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> niels123 said:
> 
> 
> > Zeiss has a 15mm f/2.8 prime. It uses 95mm filters so I think a 15-35 f/2.8 will not be easily made with "only" 82mm filters. I also think that a 15-35 will me much more expensive than a 16-35.
> ...



I hope it's not curved -- it's one of the advantages of the 16-35 II.


----------



## gsealy (Mar 30, 2015)

pwp said:


> The relatively recent 24-70 f/2.8II missed out on IS so I'd be surprised to see it on a 16-35 f/2.8II replacement due to cost issues. I'd welcome this lens with or without IS. The current 16-35 f/2.8II is a modest performer, though some photographers are fortunate enough to have great copies. 15mm at the wide end would also be welcome, just so long as screw-on filters were still an option (82mm?)
> 
> -pw



My 16-35 f2.8 II works very well for me. But I use it for landscape purposes so its shortcomings are not as obvious perhaps.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2015)

A few considerations to this rumor:


Canon's landscape (16-35 F/4L IS) and archtitecture / crazy ultrawide needs (11-24 F/4L) have just been addressed very, very soundly. So if Canon is going to make _another_ UWA zoom, the principal missing tool is a fast zoom for events and sports (possibly also astro). That's the only UWA FF zoom I'd see them make in the next 5-7 years.


I don't expect there to be IS on this lens. Why no IS? Other than for longer FL zooms that demand it, Canon seems to save IS for f/4 zooms like the 24-70 F/4L IS, 24-105 F/4L IS or 16-35 F/4L IS.



 If it's a specialist event/sports lens (and I think it will be), not having a front filter ring is not necessarily a crippling blow like it would be for landscapers. That said, I don't see Canon being so foolish as to chase 1-2mm wider FL at the cost of a bulbous front element that eliminates the front filter ring or forces a massive 95mm Zeiss-like filter ring. I see this lens having a front filter ring -- sports guys or boozy wedding reception folks might want to protect their front element with more than just a short UWA hood...


Canon's competitive landscape has just been made more difficult / potentially less profitable with the release of Tamron's impressive 15-30 F/2.8 VC. It lacks a red ring, weathersealing, and a front-filter ring (expect Canon to offer all of those with its next ultrawide zoom), but it seems to have everything else.

Consider Tamron's performance (yes, resolution is only one metric, but...):
http://www.lenstip.com/432.4-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Rozdzielczo%C5%9B%C4%87.html

vs. what Canon offers now in a similar f/2.8 lens:
http://www.lenstip.com/198.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html


Therefore, my money is overwhelmingly on Canon to offer a 16-35 F/2.8L III (i.e. without IS) and with a front filter ring. It will resolve much better in the corners like the 16-35 F/4L IS does. 

But given the Tamron and two very powerful tools Canon has recently offered in this FL range, _this lens had better deliver_. At these focal lengths, the 'Great Canon f/2.8 zoom' is no longer the best show in town, so it needs to wow to sell.

- A


----------



## mycanonphotos (Mar 30, 2015)

Don't care about IS in this Config. It needs to be sharp across the board at 2.8 at most of it's focal lengths. Done deal..order me one the day it's announced. O ya..and if it has a large curved front element..you can buy the Tokina or the Tamron instead...


----------



## TeT (Mar 30, 2015)

17 35 f2 No IS; there is a lens that will coexist with the 16 35 4 L


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2015)

TeT said:


> 17 35 f2 No IS; there is a lens that will coexist with the 16 35 4 L



Dream land. Sigma would be much more likely put one out before Canon does. 

Such a lens does not exist today in FF, so even if Canon did it, they would ask for something astronomical for one, something north of $3k I'm sure. And it would be as big like a 70-200 and weigh a ton, I'd imagine. 

I don't mean to naysay -- I love the idea -- but I think such a lens would be highly improbable from Canon.

- A


----------



## TeT (Mar 30, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > 17 35 f2 No IS; there is a lens that will coexist with the 16 35 4 L
> ...



probably yes to Sigma doing it first.

It's just hard to envision the 16 35 2.8 III as a must have product, with the very good 16 35 4 L in play, it fills the fast wide niche or astro crowd, put IS on it and it is a must have but bounces the 4 L to the sideline

Make it faster (2.0) + a touch narrower with only existing technological improvements is the only thing that makes sense... It is its own thing again...

we shall see...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2015)

TeT said:


> It's just hard to envision the 16 35 2.8 III as a must have product, with the very good 16 35 4 L in play, it fills the fast wide niche or astro crowd, put IS on it and it is a must have but bounces the 4 L to the sideline
> 
> Make it faster (2.0) + a touch narrower with only existing technological improvements is the only thing that makes sense... It is its own thing again...
> 
> we shall see...



Many many many event & sports photographers skipped the stellar 16-35 f/4L IS altogether for one solitary reason: it was an f/4 lens. They need speed and that's that; using the 16-35 f/4L IS lens and doubling the ISO to net the same shutter speed as their 16-35 f/2.8L II -- _even if that f/4 lens is sharper_ -- does not play with them. 

The next time you watch a sporting event where there are a mob of photographers around the coach/players at the end of the game, look at the glass they use. I overwhelmingly see the 14-24 f/2.8 Nikon and 16-35 f/2.8 Canon.

Because of other recent releases, Canon's only logical play in a new UWA zoom is: 

(a) to offer a new 16-35 f/2.8 zoom
(b) to offer a straight clone of the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 lens (but at the cost of a front filter ring)
(c) to do something nutty and make a focal length duckbill-platypus-of-a-lens like a 16-70 f/4L IS lens as a do-it-all walkaround for price-constrained 6D owners or simplicity-loving folks who just want one lens on the camera.

My opinion: 

(a) is needed
(b) is not _as_ needed since the 11-24 came out (though event people will still want the extra speed of f/2.8 )
(c) is a tiny market, as a 4x-plus zoom multiplier (esp. on that end of the FL range) will likely punish IQ quite a bit

If I was a betting man, and was offered 3 votes on what Canon's UWA next FF zoom is, I'd put all three chips on (a).

- A


----------



## TeT (Mar 30, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > It's just hard to envision the 16 35 2.8 III as a must have product, with the very good 16 35 4 L in play, it fills the fast wide niche or astro crowd, put IS on it and it is a must have but bounces the 4 L to the sideline
> ...



I fit into the just want one lens category.. which really means 1 at a time since I have 3 that I keep (16-35 2.8/24 70 4/70 300 L)

I agree that it will be the 16 35 2.8 III that we probably will see; its just not as big of a deal as it would have been 2 years ago because of all the other new offerings in UWA.

The opportunity is there to make something special with a UWA F/2... (could that be smaller than the 11 24?)

I think everyone who reads this forum would be floored if Canon did that...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I don't know how many of you have actually seen the 11-24/f4L, but take it from someone that has, it isn't the most transportable lens. It is huge. I can't see it going in anyone's backpack.



Ultra-ultra-widers are not exactly the most reasonable folks, and the 11-24 f/4L is just as unreasonable as they are. 

I think for every moment of headache from bag-packing frustrations and having sore back from lugging that monster, they have a _hundred_ thoughts of "Wow, this thing is a freaking awesome."

Ultra-ultra-wideness is a sickness, and that lens is the cure for it. I'm not one to question it, but I sure as hell won't buy one. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 30, 2015)

TeT said:


> The opportunity is there to make something special with a UWA F/2... (could that be smaller than the 11 24?)



Smaller? Diameter wise probably, but length and weight would be a lot greater with the f/2, I think. Sigma made that crop f/1.8 sort-of-standard zoom and though it had a smaller diameter, it was about as long and heavy as a _full-frame_ 24-70 f/2.8.

Some optical physicist with a lot of time on this forum would probably be able to chunk out some calculations for you.

- A


----------



## pwp (Mar 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > It's just hard to envision the 16 35 2.8 III as a must have product, with the very good 16 35 4 L in play...
> ...


It's an f/4...that's my reason for holding off too. I've come very close to pulling the trigger on the brilliant 16-35 f/4is but for my needs and shooting style it's that darn maximum aperture. f/4 with good IS will be perfect for most static subjects, but the value of f/2.8 cannot be underestimated when you're in the business of stopping action, and for achieving a particular look that starts slipping away when you click to f/4. That may sound fussy but it's real.

What I'd ask from a 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII is a comparable level of upgrade that we saw in the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII over the MkI. To be able to shoot at f/2.8 and get more than just the very centre of the image sharp. The 24-70 f/2.8II just blew my socks off with it's prime matching IQ. If a 16-35 f/2.8III could have a similar upgrade, then my 16-35II would be off to eBay in a heartbeat.

-pw


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2015)

pwp said:


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



I once posited that it's more convenient weight & size-wise to get more IS performance than it is to get one stop quicker with glass. I joked that in 10 years, we'd all be shooting tiny & ultralight f/4 or f/5.6 lenses with 7-8 stops of IS more likely than we'd ever see an f/2 zoom of any kind. 

But another possibility is that high ISO performance gets good enough that folks will take the output of a _great_ f/4 lens at ISO 6400 over a _decent_ f/2.8 lens at ISO 3200, i.e. bump the iso on the f/4 setup to get the same shutter speed and rely on the sensor and post to manage the noise.

But I recognize that is (to some extent) heresy to event shooters, concert shooters, etc. #justsayin

- A


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Mar 31, 2015)

I don't see the image quality going up very much for a new 16-35L III f2.8 lens. They might add IS and call it good. The best 16-35 f2.8 lens is the Sony Zeiss version and even that is just a small amount better than the Canon 16-35L II. Maybe they will give the version III some magical new glass elements that make such a design function much better wide open at 16mm, who knows... 

It seems such a lens can't take screw on filters, have little vignetting, low coma, low distortion, and also be sharp to the corners wide open all at the same time. The current 16-35L II handles all of those factors pretty well without being complete ass on any one metric. I've used the 16-35L II for many landscapes and always felt it was great as an all-around lens. It also produces some of the best Sun bursts of just about any lens ever made which is also a bonus.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 31, 2015)

We don't need revolutionary. Just a 16-35mm f/2.8 with the same or better IQ as the 24-70mm f/2.8 II.

Why would such a lens lose the nice filter thread of the current model?

And why would anybody satisfied with f/4 begrudge those of us who prefer f/2.8 at any freakin' ISO?

How is this a controversy?


----------



## pwp (Mar 31, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> We don't need revolutionary. Just a 16-35mm f/2.8 with the same or better IQ as the 24-70mm f/2.8 II.
> 
> Why would such a lens lose the nice filter thread of the current model?
> 
> ...



+1 Thanks Yueng Linger. Neatly put...

For the final couple of years before the 24-70 f/2.8II finally replaced the MkI, having given up on the MkI (five copies) I used a terrific EF 24-105 f/4is. This lens opened my eyes to the undeniable usefulness of IS on shorter lenses, but it also made clear the argument in favor of f/2.8 over f/4 for my particular needs and the sort of projects/commissioned work that I do. There are no rights or wrongs. Just what suits best.

-pw


----------



## TeT (Mar 31, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> We don't need revolutionary. Just a 16-35mm f/2.8 with the same or better IQ as the 24-70mm f/2.8 II.
> 
> Why would such a lens lose the nice filter thread of the current model?
> 
> ...



I think the IQ will be in line with the 24 70 II... and the 2.8 PPL will rejoice. and some of the 4 PPL will go back to 2.8 if it has the corners that I think it may have...

I don't think there is any controversy at all... everybody should have a UWA available to fit their needs by years end..


----------



## pwp (Mar 31, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Maybe you should take the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC for a test drive?


Indeed. From early reviews the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC looks fantastic but that bulbous front element means no CPL. Darn...
But it seems that all of a sudden there is high quality, totally viable choice in wide zooms. Good times!

-pw


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2015)

pwp said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you should take the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC for a test drive?
> ...



+1

It used to be a choice of the budget 17-40 f/4L or the 'overpriced-for-landscape-apertures' 16-35 F/2.8L II, and neither really resolved in the corners too well. 

Now we're (relatively) flooded with 3 impressively performing UWA and *Ultra-*UWA options. It's a huge lovefest on ultrawide in the last 12 months. Love it.

- A


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Mar 31, 2015)

Oh gosh.  If this pans out (preferably with IS for video and longish handheld exposure purposes - I know I'm asking for a lot here) along with the rumored and patented 24-70 f/2.8L IS AND a new 35L prime AND a new 50 f/1.2L .... I will possibly explode with happiness.

I'm serious. It won't be pretty. Little chunks of me all over the wall, stuck to the ceiling, etc. My last words will be "Oh... My... " *BOOM!* (me exploding)

Or I could be massively exaggerating to convey how much I hope this rumor will bear fruit. One or the other. Your choice.


----------



## Memdroid (Mar 31, 2015)

My 16-35mm 2.8 II got destroyed a couple of weeks ago and I had a CPS loan 16-35mm F4 IS and used it until yesterday when my insurance got me a replacement. Although the F4 IS version is a nice sharp lens but it needs a lot of light and I REALLY did miss the extra stop on low light events. Doubling the ISO is not the way to go if you want to soak up light. Pricing is not an issue, if this rumor is true and the successor gets an overhaul similar to the mk I & II versions of the 24-70mm, I'll choose this over any UWA F4 lens Canon offers. 
The Tamron seems nice enough on the IQ front, the rest does not impress me much and the lack of CPS-like support is a no go for me by default.


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 31, 2015)

I use 16-35 2.8II for professional real estate shoots, including for magazines, events and general landscapes etc., and none of my customers have ever complained about soft corners, and I don't really see them either.
Sure, I use Lightroom and it easily fixes most faults.

Unless this new version is absolutely amazing, I'll just keep using my 2 year old lens for a few more years.

I've often found that once the lens has been in production for a couple of years, the later batches often perform a lot better than the first or second batches.
I bought mine, new, about 2 years ago, so any teething bugs had been worked out, or I'm lucky enough to get a good copy.


----------

