# Will Canon be making a 16-35 f/2.8 IS anytime soon?



## ddashti (Jan 11, 2013)

Nikon has patented for a 16-35mm f/2.8 VR lens (VR of Nikon is the equivalent of the IS of Canon).
Does Canon plan on making an equivalent of Nikon's recently patented lens?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 11, 2013)

Well, Nikon may have no intention of releasing a 16-35 VR. A lot of the lens designs that are patented never turn into real products.

There _are_ some rumors of a Canon 14-24mm, but until we get significantly better information, I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## tron (Jan 11, 2013)

This is a rumors site. That does not exclude negative rumors. So I say ... NO! 

OK I have no inside information but it the most logical. 16-35mm f/2.8 lenses have the same diameter more or less with 24-70mm f/2.8 L lenses.
And we all know how many 24-70 2.8 L IS lenses exist ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 11, 2013)

ddashti said:


> Nikon has patented for a 16-35mm f/2.8 VR lens (VR of Nikon is the equivalent of the IS of Canon).
> Does Canon plan on making an equivalent of Nikon's recently patented lens?


Going by the recent 24-70 f/2.8 L II, I do not think Canon will release an IS version of 16-35 L anytime soon.


----------



## emag (Jan 11, 2013)

ddashti said:


> Nikon has patented for a 16-35mm f/2.8 VR lens (VR of Nikon is the equivalent of the IS of Canon).
> Does Canon plan on making an equivalent of Nikon's recently patented lens?



No


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 11, 2013)

It would be nice to have either 14-24 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f2.8 IS.....IS can be really useful for night time landscape.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 11, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> It would be nice to have either 14-24 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f2.8 IS.....IS can be really useful for night time landscape.



you better use a tripod for that.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 11, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > It would be nice to have either 14-24 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f2.8 IS.....IS can be really useful for night time landscape.
> ...



No...he is waiting for that really fast f/1 on the 14-24mm ....except he would also like an IS that gives him 10 stops of stabilization. Clearly it easier than using a tripod with the currently available lenses.


----------



## robbymack (Jan 11, 2013)

Yes and it will be $6000


----------



## tron (Jan 11, 2013)

robbymack said:


> Yes and it will be $6000


Or 60000 ;D


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 11, 2013)

Nothing wrong with being into lowkey wide nighttime images. I for one would welcome a handheld UWA zoom from Canon that actually has sharp(er) corners.
Frigging UWA zoom shopping is KILLING me.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 11, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> I for one would welcome a handheld UWA zoom from Canon that actually has sharp(er) corners.
> Frigging UWA zoom shopping is KILLING me.



Nothing, not even a yet to be conceived super-duper zoom, is going to make everyone perfectly content. They will be nitpicking something else with that. 

All things considered, current 16-35L II is a competent UWA.


----------



## cpsico (Jan 11, 2013)

It would be waste to add IS to this lens I have taken great shots at 1/6 of second hand held non is, better to work on IQ at lower apertures at f8 it is amazing!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jan 11, 2013)

Going on recent form, I'd expect both a f2.8 20mm IS and a f4 14mm IS in consumer formats

How's that for a rumour ! < note the use of the "u" ;-)


----------



## candyman (Jan 11, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > I for one would welcome a handheld UWA zoom from Canon that actually has sharp(er) corners.
> ...




Just bought and used it, and I agree


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 11, 2013)

1400 USD for 'competent' is a tough pill to swallow. I think the 17-40 is priced right.(699)You get what you pay for with that one but as for the 16-35, the one stop in light and not very much and according to others, no better in the corners for twice as much?


----------



## pwp (Jan 12, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> 1400 USD for 'competent' is a tough pill to swallow. I think the 17-40 is priced right.(699)You get what you pay for with that one but as for the 16-35, the one stop in light and not very much and according to others, no better in the corners for twice as much?


If you were to track the 16-35 f/2.8II price since launch, you'll see that it dropped a LOT. Historically, I'd regard $1400 as a great buy for this lens. Agreed, the 17-40 f/4 is seriously good value at $699, and it will match the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8II once past f/5.6. If it's important for your shooting style to have the option of shooting commercial quality files at f/2.8, then the 16-35 f/2.8II will be your UWA zoom of choice. 

Back on topic, I don't think the 16-35 lens needs IS. It's already bulky in the weight and size department and IS would necessitate a chunky price hike. Personally I shoot with the 17-40 f/4 as my UWA work generally needs f/8-f/11. Any update on the 16-35 should be directed at the difficult to solve IQ issues. 

The lens that _will _grab my attention is the 14-24 f/2.8, Canon's current daydream special.

-PW


----------



## christianronnel (Jan 12, 2013)

I just ordered the 16-35II on Amazon for $1300. I figured there's no point in waiting for a rumored lens. I hope it performs better than what most people are saying about it. I tested both the 17-40 and the 16-35 at a local rental shop. The 16-35 had sharper edges at f11 than the 17-40. It's not as sharp as 24-70II but sharp enough.



Dylan777 said:


> It would be nice to have either 14-24 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f2.8 IS.....IS can be really useful for night time landscape.


Personally, I prefer being able to use filters rather than having IS for UWA lens. Canon patent for the 14-24 design doesn't look like filter is possible. I also hope Canon creates something like a 12-20mm non-fisheye lens design.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 12, 2013)

christianronnel said:


> I just ordered the 16-35II on Amazon for $1300. I figured there's no point in waiting for a rumored lens.



Smart call. Congrats.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 12, 2013)

pwp said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > 1400 USD for 'competent' is a tough pill to swallow. I think the 17-40 is priced right.(699)You get what you pay for with that one but as for the 16-35, the one stop in light and not very much and according to others, no better in the corners for twice as much?
> ...



I personally feel the 16-35 II is significantly better than the 17-40 the extra stop is big if you use it


----------

