# Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Announcement Moved Closer to Photokina?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 20, 2016)

```
We’re told that the announcement for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III has been moved closer to Photokina in September, and delivery along with it. That puts 3 lenses in the mix for announcement at Photokina, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II. We also expect to see the EOS 5D Mark IV announced.</p>
<p>Delays with lens launches happen a lot, as production is always challenging. For example, the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II was set for a Photokina announcement, but ended up being delayed a couple of months and was announced in November of that year. The EF 11-24mm f/4L was delayed by about 6 months, as marketing material was already out, but announcement was held back for production reasons.</p>
<p>If anything else changes, we’ll let you know.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 20, 2016)

*sigh* delays, delays, delays... 

I thought maybe some reviews of that new lens would make some rainy summer days shorter while waiting for the photokina announcements (esp. 5D4 and the new kit lens). 

Now the big question is, how this delay will affect other products - or marketing strategies. 

Hopefully not even more delays


----------



## midluk (Jun 20, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> Now the big question is, how this delay will affect other products - or marketing strategies.
> 
> Hopefully not even more delays



I'm sure, they will delay the 5D4 to photokina 2018 because the 24-105 is not ready for photokina 2016


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 20, 2016)

This will be the first f/2.8L zoom to come out since the BR gunk was released. Think we'll see it on the 16-35 f/2.8L III, or do you think Canon is saving it just for the fast L primes?

My vote is the latter, but I was curious what the forum thinks.

- A


----------



## Sabaki (Jun 20, 2016)

Canon Rumors or Canon Teasers? lol

Reeeeeeally waiting to see this be announced, it's my next lens I purchase.

I vote for the BR in zooms. I have no engineering background but I imagine the goo sandwiched between two pieces of glass can happen!


----------



## RGF (Jun 20, 2016)

We can hope ;D, we can pray :, we can despair :-\

But the lens will be here when Canon is good and ready to release.

Hope it is as good optically as we all expect.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 20, 2016)

It terms of the question on the Blue Goo, I don't think it is likely that it is more expensive than another kind of element - in fact it could be a bit cheaper to pull off than a normal, glass element. There's really no reason not to employ it in a top-line lens, like the 15-35L III, unless it is unnecessary; or came about only after most of the design was finished for the lens. 

One speculation: they may not market it going forward as they marketed it under the 35L II. Back then they had a mumbly jumbly press release that gave so few details about this new technology, that we didn't even know if it was a solid or a liquid; thus the Blue Goo nickname it attracted. I suspect they used the term "organic compound" because they were trying desperately not to use the word "plastic" among the L user crowd, lest they fall victim to the vapors. 

I hope, now in this day of the Art lens, that we needn't be too snobbish about materials that aren't just metal and glass.


----------



## fentiger (Jun 20, 2016)

would not surprise me if the blue spectrum element was a compound similar to fluorite with special coatings on it.
nothing wrong in using plastic either, it has a lower refractive index than glass, so long as its not used on the two elements at the front and rear


----------



## j-nord (Jun 20, 2016)

Although this lens interests me greatly (only it if it has good coma control), the delay doesn't bother me since I probably won't be in the market for one until next season anyways.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 20, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Although this lens interests me greatly (only it if it has good coma control), the delay doesn't bother me since I probably won't be in the market for one until next season anyways.



I always forget the astro camp. Are the astro folks putting their hopes on this one, or are they just waiting for a blue goo version of the 35L II to arrive in a future 24 f/1.4L prime? The 35L II coma performance is good from what I've seen.

- A


----------



## j-nord (Jun 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Although this lens interests me greatly (only it if it has good coma control), the delay doesn't bother me since I probably won't be in the market for one until next season anyways.
> ...



Ive been very close to picking up a rokinon 14mm f2.8 or rokinon 24mm f1.4 many times but I'd much rather wait and invest in a more versatile lens. A 16-35mm f2.8 with really good coma would be a perfect lens for me, Id take it even if it doesn't have IS. If the 16-35iii has poor coma then 24L ii would probably be my next choice.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 20, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Ive been very close to picking up a rokinon 14mm f2.8 or rokinon 24mm f1.4 many times but I'd much rather wait and invest in a more versatile lens. A 16-35mm f2.8 with really good coma would be a perfect lens for me, Id take it even if it doesn't have IS. If the 16-35iii has poor coma then 24L ii would probably be my next choice.



If you don't need convenient front-filtering, I hear the Tamron 15-30 is a good call for a zoom for astro. The coma's not terrible compared to similar offerings:

http://www.lenstip.com/432.7-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

- A


----------



## j-nord (Jun 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Ive been very close to picking up a rokinon 14mm f2.8 or rokinon 24mm f1.4 many times but I'd much rather wait and invest in a more versatile lens. A 16-35mm f2.8 with really good coma would be a perfect lens for me, Id take it even if it doesn't have IS. If the 16-35iii has poor coma then 24L ii would probably be my next choice.
> ...


Ive heard it's good but as you mentioned, with out a 77 or 82mm filter, it's no longer a versatile lens.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 20, 2016)

j-nord said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



The 24LII has bad coma too, I´m afraid. I compared it to my 24-70 f/2.8LII, and the latter was noticeably better, even when both were compared at f/2.8.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 20, 2016)

+1 on the 15-30 Tamron for astro. Coma is actually really well controlled. The disadvantage is, of course, the f/stop versus the 24 1.4. But if you're comparing it to the 16-35 Canons, there's much to recommend.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 20, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> The 24LII has bad coma too, I´m afraid. I compared it to my 24-70 f/2.8LII, and the latter was noticeably better, even when both were compared at f/2.8.


Sorry, I was referring to a 24L iii (the next one which will potentially have good coma).


----------



## unfocused (Jun 20, 2016)

Just bought the 16-35 f4 IS on the Canon refurbished sale, so I expect the last obstacle to releasing this lens has now been met. 

Seriously, I doubt if this would be in my budget anyway and I'm really loving the quality of the 16-35 f4.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 20, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Just bought the 16-35 f4 IS on the Canon refurbished sale, so I expect the last obstacle to releasing this lens has now been met.
> 
> Seriously, I doubt if this would be in my budget anyway and I'm really loving the quality of the 16-35 f4.



I'd recommend you get the lens you need for your application:

16-35 f/4L IS = most landscapes (i.e. non-astro), video (IS), hiking (low weight), etc.
16-35 f/2.8L II or III = sports, events, concerts (in the pit) and astro if the coma improves.
11-24 f/4L = architecture, when you need to take a pano in one shot for some reason, etc.

I principally shoot landscapes when I shoot UWA, so the 16-35 f/4L IS is absolutely perfect for my needs. YMMV depending on what you want, but I'm not convinced 'one UWA zoom to rule them all' exists or is ever coming.

- A


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I principally shoot landscapes when I shoot UWA, so the 16-35 f/4L IS is absolutely perfect for my needs. YMMV depending on what you want, but I'm not convinced 'one UWA zoom to rule them all' exists or is ever coming.
> 
> - A



I agree with you. If canon made a jack of all trades lens it wouldn't excel at any of the tasks. Better to make the right tool for the job even if that means 3 different zoom UWA lenses. It also boosts sales if the buyer has more than one specialty


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 20, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I principally shoot landscapes when I shoot UWA, so the 16-35 f/4L IS is absolutely perfect for my needs. YMMV depending on what you want, but I'm not convinced 'one UWA zoom to rule them all' exists or is ever coming.
> ...



Some do believe the f/2.8 version should always outshine the f/4 version, and they argue that for $1700 (or so), the f/2.8 should mop the floor with an $1,199 f/4 lens. I am not one of those people.

I believe the 16-35 f/2.8L III could possibly outperform the 16-35 f/4L IS for landscape work, but (a) it will not do so dramatically as most landscapes are shot stopped down, and (b) the f/2.8 will be a heavy weight you always must carry. So, for me, I would be stunned if I ended up selling my f/4 IS for the new f/2.8.

- A


----------



## j-nord (Jun 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


I'll take similar landscape performance to the f4 + 2.9 or better t-stop (mkii is 2.9) + coma control. It doesn't need to be head and shoulders sharper than the f4. I think most people who stuck with the mkii over the f4, have no choice, they require f2.8 so any improvement is welcome.


----------



## douglaurent (Jun 21, 2016)

These are 3 mostly disappointing new releases, even if the quality is great - a 16-35/2.8 would have deserved IS, the 24-70/2.8 also would have needed an IS update first, and a 70-200 and 100-400 are always a better choice than a slow 70-300.

Canon doesn't even have sharp wide open 50mm and 85mm primes, these would be the first urgent lenses needed - unless Canon has given up that market to third parties already. Fast primes with IS are such a logical thing - when do they want to release them, 2021?

Lenses like the 11-24, 35/1.4 II, 100-400 II and 200-400 all have been great, but there are really way to many empty spaces in the Canon lens lineup. They should realize it's 2016 and not the last millennium anymore, when innovations were demanded at a much slower pace and only Nikon was a rival.


----------



## Sabaki (Jun 21, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> These are 3 mostly disappointing new releases, even if the quality is great - a 16-35/2.8 would have deserved IS, the 24-70/2.8 also would have needed an IS update first, and a 70-200 and 100-400 are always a better choice than a slow 70-300.
> 
> Canon doesn't even have sharp wide open 50mm and 85mm primes, these would be the first urgent lenses needed - unless Canon has given up that market to third parties already. Fast primes with IS are such a logical thing - when do they want to release them, 2021?
> 
> Lenses like the 11-24, 35/1.4 II, 100-400 II and 200-400 all have been great, but there are really way to many empty spaces in the Canon lens lineup. They should realize it's 2016 and not the last millennium anymore, when innovations were demanded at a much slower pace and only Nikon was a rival.



So let's get critical for a moment and pose a few questions.

1. Focal length - is another iteration of the 16-35 met the consumer's want? Would 15 or 14mm have made this lens more attractive?
2. IS - this lens is f/2.8 for applications outside of landscapes so I would assume those shooting at f/2.8 would have loved image stabilization.
3. Has Canon provided an emphatic reply to the legendary Nikon 14-24?

Hmmmmm...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> So let's get critical for a moment and pose a few questions.
> 
> 1. Focal length - is another iteration of the 16-35 met the consumer's want? Would 15 or 14mm have made this lens more attractive?
> 2. IS - this lens is f/2.8 for applications outside of landscapes so I would assume those shooting at f/2.8 would have loved image stabilization.
> ...


1.Yes, Nikon still offer a 16-35 f2.8 too, many core users prefer a smaller, lighter, sharper, less distortion and CA, cheaper and more practical ( flat front element with normal filter threads) over a mm or two wider coverage.
2. Nope, Canon see the core customer for these lenses as being PJ's and sports shooters who generally need faster shutter speeds to stop subject motion much more than IS to stop camera shake. Yes that is a broad generalization, but if that is your core market cater to them.
3. Yes. The 11-24 pisses over the Nikon 14-24 in every metric, have you ever shot the 14-24 at 2.8? It has bad distortion CA and resolution. Canon users wanted one for so long because they didn't have one, but even when you stop the Nikon down the distortion is still too great to correct in post without real impact.

Take a look here:- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

And here:- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 21, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> So let's get critical for a moment and pose a few questions.
> 
> 1. Focal length - is another iteration of the 16-35 met the consumer's want? Would 15 or 14mm have made this lens more attractive?
> 2. IS - this lens is f/2.8 for applications outside of landscapes so I would assume those shooting at f/2.8 would have loved image stabilization.
> ...



1) Yes. A 16-35 f/2.8 is a staple professional tool, and it needs to be periodically updated. Dropping it under 16mm would highly likely eliminate the front filter threads and require an outrigger setup for filtering. Whatever percentage of astro folks who would find a 14-something f/2.8 UWA zoom attractive simply have to be less than _every other field of photography_ that would appreciate the ability to conveniently filter.

2) In general I'm pro IS for any lens, but Canon has seemingly refused to give 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses IS while the f/4 variants _do_ get it. We'll see if they change that this time.

3) Because I'm not sure Canon needs to. Once the 16-35 f/2.8L III is out, Canon will have everything covered compared to Nikon (including 11-13mm rectilinear shooting) except for 14-15mm shooting at f/2.8, which is principally only of interest to the astro (and perhaps sports) crowd. There's a misconception that the Nikkor's 'porridge is just right' for UWA applications, but it's far too heavy for a (non-astro) landscaper who won't ever use it at f/2.8, it doesn't take front filters easily/conveniently, and it has a small zoom range. I think it's a heck of an optical instrument, don't get me wrong, but I'll take Canon's UWA lineup (on aggregate) any day, as more lenses = more likely a 'porridge that is just right _for me_'. In my case, the 16-35 f/4L IS is absolutely perfect for my landscape needs.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> This will be the first f/2.8L zoom to come out since the BR gunk was released. Think we'll see it on the 16-35 f/2.8L III, or do you think Canon is saving it just for the fast L primes?
> 
> My vote is the latter, but I was curious what the forum thinks.
> 
> - A


Hi ahsanford! 

My personal guess (!) is, that BR can only bend and optimize the blue light within a lens for one certain focal length.
So this would mean in a zoom it could not work well enough over the zoom range to justify usage and price there. 
Conclusion: BR = prime stuff, because of optical physics, not because of marketing. 

But I said it's just a guess, because I don't know how BR would work with different FL at the same time.
If it works well in a zoom, we'll see it in a EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III at a MRSP way north 3.000 $/€.


----------



## Sabaki (Jun 21, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 1.Yes, Nikon still offer a 16-35 f2.8 too, many core users prefer a smaller, lighter, sharper, less distortion and CA, cheaper and more practical ( flat front element with normal filter threads) over a mm or two wider coverage.
> 2. Nope, Canon see the core customer for these lenses as being PJ's and sports shooters who generally need faster shutter speeds to stop subject motion much more than IS to stop camera shake. Yes that is a broad generalization, but if that is your core market cater to them.
> 3. Yes. The 11-24 pisses over the Nikon 14-24 in every metric, *have you ever shot the 14-24 at 2.8? It has bad distortion CA and resolution*. Canon users wanted one for so long because they didn't have one, but *even when you stop the Nikon down the distortion is still too great to correct in post without real impact.*
> 
> ...


This is very interesting to me and perhaps an example of how we can falsely express the greeness of the grass over yonder.

I have for years and years believed the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 to be the perfect landscape tool, as it was often touted as that. From Canonites unhappy with the 16-35 f/2.8mkii to any Canon basher out there, the yardstick was always the Nikon. Now that Canon have released updated UWAs, turns out the venerable 14-24 is far from the perfect tool.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 21, 2016)

well it's nearly July .. Photokina announcements start in late August. So i guess we are already closer to Photokina.

it's been a strangely quiet year for Canon on the optics front, actually the last two years have been quiet really.. only issuing out 6 new lenses in the last 1.5 years. unless there's a slew of lenses, it will make the last two years the slowest for a while for canon lens releases back to the 2008-7 timeframe.

2016 2
2015 4
2014 7
2013 4
2012 9
2011 4
2010 7
2009 5
2008 4
2007 4
2006 3

it's also curious to note that canon seems to have a "big year" releasing new lenses, then a more "quiet year". since from around 2010 onwards.

there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 21, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.



I have no experience on lens manufacturing, but I would be stunned if this were the case. One year build increments imply Canon has flawless sales forecasting that perfectly pegs demand. It's far too risky to do this as you could have a major shortage and have to wait a year for more product.

I do believe that turning over a line to another product is quite an undertaking, but I have to believe both (a) they can turn a line over faster than we think and (b) they have multiple lines to allocate capacity to better respond to demand.

But if someone has information to the contrary, please forward. I'd like to read up on that!

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.
> ...



Yes, they certainly make the bigger lenses in batches and then turn over the production staff to another model after the allotted number is made. I think this was explained by Canon themselves in an interesting set of videos on how the 500 f4 IS was made.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 21, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


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



Oh, sure. With $10K+ lenses, I could understand that. They don't exactly fly off the shelves, and Canon would see a shortage coming months (if not quarters) in advance. On those, I could see an annual build.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


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



I think most people would be surprised at the comparatively modest number of higher end lenses Canon actually make. What would be the global market for a 16-35 f2.8 MkIII, 10,000? 100,000? Over a life span of around 8 years that isn't going to pay for a lot of factory time and space let alone R&D, wages, shipping, profits.......

As for the bigger and more esoteric lenses I suspect 'annual' is far too frequent for batches. I know the 50 f1.0 and 200 f1.8 were still available new years after they stopped manufacturing them. Lenses that rely on big specialized glass have to wait for the crystals to grow too and if you lose a batch of those because of manufacturing issues (like the natural disasters) then I'd think timescales could widen considerably.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 22, 2016)

Is it confirmed that there won't be IS? Or has IS simply gone unmentioned so far?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 22, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Is it confirmed that there won't be IS? Or has IS simply gone unmentioned so far?



There's no CR3 on IS to my knowledge. 

People tend to lump the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses into the same 'workhorse handheld zoom' bucket, and it appears that in that bucket, Canon would tend to go [f/2.8 non-IS] or [f/4 IS] for such lenses. My money is on non-IS for that reason, but Canon may shake things up and offer it for the video crowd.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 24, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


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



Could fewer releases mean that the lens lineup is getting so good quality wise that development time to "top" a previous release is getting longer?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > there was some comments that some lenses are only assembled at one shot, ie: canon will make what they need for the entire year, and then switch the assembly over to another lens. I wonder if they are now on a two year cycle and thus needing to fit in more esoteric lenses into the production plans requires a two year manufacturing cycle.
> ...



why would you be stunned by that?

you don't think that canon has a damned good idea how many lenses of a particular type they will sell in it's lifetime?

they probably overproduce on the first batch and then adjust projections accordingly.

if you stop and think about it, it's the only way really it can be done .. there's 60++ lenses in canon's lineup.

I also wouldn't be surprised if camera bodies are generally done the same way as well.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 25, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I have no experience on lens manufacturing, but I would be stunned if this were the case. One year build increments imply Canon has flawless sales forecasting that perfectly pegs demand.
> ...


_
...and they probably have more than one line going at once to cover those 60 lenses._ Canon's not run like a single-artisan jewelry outfit that's building product for Etsy.

I'm not saying that Canon doesn't build in big batches, I'm just saying an _annualized_ build says that Canon has razor sharp sales forecasting that never leaves them holding the bag on thousands of units in excess or oversold to backorder situations. Canon knows its business well, but they don't control competitive releases, changes in the photography market, or the value of global currency (which certainly affects sales).

So Canon knows it's customers well, but one would think there are just too many unknowns for them to gamble with their supply chain like this. But others here have stated that Canon does indeed go annually for some lenses, so what do I know? 

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Is it confirmed that there won't be IS? Or has IS simply gone unmentioned so far?
> ...



So who is the bookie that takes all these bets you make?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 26, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



If there was a bookie for this, I'd fear for my financial future. 

It's also being called the 16-35 f/2.8L III according to CR, _not_ the 16-35 f/2.8L IS.

More circumstantial evidence to the 'non IS' camp, I guess.

- A


----------



## RGF (Jul 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Is it confirmed that there won't be IS? Or has IS simply gone unmentioned so far?
> ...



I would prefer non-IS F2.8. IS adds extra glass/mechanics which increases weight, potentially cost, and to some degree reduces IQ.


----------



## Corydoras (Jul 12, 2016)

RGF said:


> I would prefer non-IS F2.8. IS adds extra glass/mechanics which increases weight, potentially cost, and to some degree reduces IQ.



I am not concerned about the IS degrading the IQ of the lens. I don´t see many whining about bad sharpness with the 70-200 IS II. 8) I see the added weight and cost being the only downsides, but when we are talking about an L-series lens these "problems" are minor issues compared to kit lenses that cost and weight significantly less to begin with.


----------



## RGF (Jul 13, 2016)

Corydoras said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I would prefer non-IS F2.8. IS adds extra glass/mechanics which increases weight, potentially cost, and to some degree reduces IQ.
> ...



In the end, I seldom use IS on my 16-35 F4 though I occasionally use it with my 24-105.

I could live without it. If I had a choice of two 16-35 lenses, equal optical performance, one w/ and one w/o IS I would pick the IS lens even if slightly heavier.

Only concern is that the optical performance would be better w/o IS - though I agree w/ your point about the 70-200 F2.8. Wonder if they can repeat that in much shorter lens


----------



## j-nord (Jul 14, 2016)

The mkiii has to have one of the following or I don't see many upgrades happening:

1) General IQ/sharpness improvement + good coma control
2) General IQ/sharpness improvement + IS
3) General IQ/sharpness improvement + 15mm
4) Big IQ/sharpness improvement + BR

Unfortunately, I think it's unlikely we will see more than one of these happening.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 14, 2016)

j-nord said:


> The mkiii has to have one of the following or I don't see many upgrades happening:
> 
> 1) General IQ/sharpness improvement + good coma control
> 2) General IQ/sharpness improvement + IS
> ...



Going wider than 16mm likely (but not certainly) would eliminate the front filter threads. I don't see that happening as working pros who use this staple tool have come to expect front filterability. Yes, there are lenses wider than 16mm on FF that have front filter threads, but they are generally much much bigger than 82mm up front.

So I don't think Canon is foolish enough to significantly reduce the practicality of the lens for a small widening of the wide end. I think this will be a straight next version of the 16-35 f/2.8L II.

IS, BR, Coma = TBD. My guess is no, no, and maaaaaaaybe. This is not principally a lens aimed at astro, and Canon's coma track record on the UWA fast zoom front is not amazing.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > The mkiii has to have one of the following or I don't see many upgrades happening:
> ...



Engineers in Canon's lens department are like:


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 14, 2016)

I could see BR happening, but my gut says they'll reserve it for the pricey fast primes for now.

I don't see IS happening -- Canon seems set to leave IS on f/4 standard/UWA zooms and not put it on the f/2.8 versions.

And coma isn't a feature so much as a performance metric. It should improve, but I'm pretty sure Canon is much more worried about the needs of the 1,000x as many photographers* tackling reportage / events / sports than those who are shooting astro.

*We have no data on this, of course. It just seems like the 16-35 is anywhere and everywhere a photographer needs to get close to a person, and common sense would imply that need must numerically dwarf the number of astro folks out there. But my common sense may be wrong...

That doesn't mean Canon doesn't care about coma, doesn't want to improve it, etc. but I can't believe it's a high priority for them.

- A


----------



## tron (Jul 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > The mkiii has to have one of the following or I don't see many upgrades happening:
> ...


... because ... the only 1. Canon 2. UWA 3. fast zoom is the 16-35 2.8 II. Quite a choice of words...

However the newer Canon zoom lenses (not necessarily both fast and UWA but fast = 24-70 2.8 II or UWA = 16-35 f/4 IS) have low coma.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 14, 2016)

tron said:


> ... because ... the only 1. Canon 2. UWA 3. fast zoom is the 16-35 2.8 II. Quite a choice of words...
> 
> However the newer Canon zoom lenses (not necessarily both fast and UWA but fast = 24-70 2.8 II or UWA = 16-35 f/4 IS) have low coma.



_How many people are shooting astro with f/4 lenses?_

Yes, the Venn diagram for your 1/2/3 at Canon is only one lens: the 16-35 f/2.8L II. Let's expand that to any Canon lens wider than 35mm and f/2.8 or faster, which astro folks might have a look at.

See coma performance below. Other than the old 20mm f/2.8 -- which the review does not clearly state took place on a FF rig (might just be APS-C samples), let's call it what it is: Canon + Fast + Wide --> not terrific coma performance.

The 24-70L II, as you said, is one noted exception.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > ... because ... the only 1. Canon 2. UWA 3. fast zoom is the 16-35 2.8 II. Quite a choice of words...
> ...


I shoot astro at f/4:


----------



## tron (Jul 15, 2016)

All these tests prove that we need a breakthrough in a Canon UWA fast lens as far as coma is concerned!
It does not have to be a zoom lens but if the new 16-35 2.8 III is almost coma free it will be a great lens for any kind of landscape (astro or not = two birds with one stone) . And the two lenses I mentioned mean that Canon just might be able to provide us with such a lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 15, 2016)

tron said:


> All these tests prove that we need a breakthrough in a Canon UWA fast lens as far as coma is concerned!
> It does not have to be a zoom lens but if the new 16-35 2.8 III is almost coma free it will be a great lens for any kind of landscape (astro or not = two birds with one stone) . And the two lenses I mentioned mean that Canon just might be able to provide us with such a lens.



Here's hoping, of course! I don't mean to be a cynic.

I still think the gamechanger for the astro camp will be the next 24 f/1.4L with the BR gunk. The 35L II is terrific but a bit too long -- just put that magic into a 24 and you're there.

- A


----------



## j-nord (Jul 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > All these tests prove that we need a breakthrough in a Canon UWA fast lens as far as coma is concerned!
> ...



Fingers cross but, Im very skeptical for the 16-35iii. Samyang/Rokinon are getting a lot of astro sales with their 14 2.8 and 24 1.4. Seems there is room for Canon to keep consumers using 1st party glass.


----------



## tron (Jul 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > All these tests prove that we need a breakthrough in a Canon UWA fast lens as far as coma is concerned!
> ...


+1 That would be a very tempting lens. But if Sigma can mae a 20 1.4 (although not a good one comawise) I can dream for a Canon version and/or a 14mm f/2.0 (OK 10 years from now...) But there is a .... CR3 that 24mm 1.4L III will appear eventually ;D while the others not so much (even 10 years from now...)


----------

