# Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Camera



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 13, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/canon-announces-two-new-ef-ultra-wide-angle-zoom-lenses-and-white-eos-rebel-sl1-digital-slr-camera/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/canon-announces-two-new-ef-ultra-wide-angle-zoom-lenses-and-white-eos-rebel-sl1-digital-slr-camera/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>High Performance Lenses Offer Optical Image Stabilizer and a Refined Compact Design; Lightweight EOS Rebel SL1 SLR Kit in White Available Soon</strong></p>
<p>MELVILLE, N.Y., May 13, 2014 – Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, is proud to announce two new wide-angle lenses and a new white color model of the EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR camera, just in time for summer. The introduction of the new Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM wide-angle zoom lenses provides Canon digital SLR camera users with the ability to capture stunning photographs and videos of spacious landscapes and many other iconic scenes. The EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM lens is the first L-series wide-angle zoom lens equipped with image stabilization, providing professional photographers with expanded creative options, especially in low light. The EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM wide-angle lens is an affordable option for entry-level DSLR users looking to enhance their images and videos with unique and creative perspectives.</p>
<p>Since its introduction in March 2013, the EOS Rebel SL1, the world’s smallest and lightest digital SLR camerai, has provided photographers of all levels with a high-performance digital SLR in a small, compact camera body. The new white EOS Rebel SL1 Camera Kit is complemented by a matching white EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens and offers a stylish alternative for photographers who like to stand out from the crowd.</p>
<p>“Having just reached a milestone of producing 100 million EF lenses, Canon is dedicated more than ever before to its heritage of creating outstanding optics for photographers of all levels,” said Yuichi Ishizuka, president and COO, Canon U.S.A., Inc. “The EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM ultra-wide zoom lenses, when paired with Canon EOS Digital SLR cameras, are powerful tools that can enhance any photographer’s creativity. And new to the U.S. market, the white EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR camera with its companion white lens, provides users with high-quality images in a small, compact body that is easy to bring along on all their summer adventures.”</p>
<p><strong>EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM</strong></p>
<p>Fully compatible with all EOS Digital SLR cameras including full-frame models like the EOS 5D Mark III and EOS 6D Digital SLR cameras, the compact and lightweight EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM ultra wide-angle zoom lens offers high image quality and an Optical Image Stabilizer (IS) for shake correction up to four shutter speed stepsii, making handheld shooting possible in dimly lit scenes where camera shake can occur. In addition, an intelligent CPU in the lens automatically selects the optimal IS mode by recognizing differences between normal handheld shots and panning. This technological advancement supports a greater range of creative expression for photographers in otherwise difficult shooting situations, such as dark indoor scenes where flash photography is prohibited, or in places where a tripod cannot be used, or when shooting at low ISO speeds.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MTF-16-35-IS.png"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-16499" alt="MTF-16-35-IS" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MTF-16-35-IS-575x304.png" width="575" height="304" /></a></p>
<p>The EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM ultra wide-angle zoom lens features newly developed, high quality Canon optics that incorporate three GMo (Glass-Molded) aspheric lens elements, including a large-diameter aspheric lens, which help improve image quality by correcting aberrations. Two additional UD lens elements help reduce chromatic aberration from edge to edge throughout the entire zoom range for excellent image quality with high resolution and contrast. The lens also features enhanced fluorine lens coatings on the front and rear lens surfaces to repel dust particles and help ensure superb color balance while minimizing ghosting. The inner focusing and ring USM offer silent, fast and accurate autofocusing. Full-time manual focus adjustment is available in autofocus (AF) mode. A nine-blade circular aperture creates beautiful, soft backgrounds. A new compact four-group zoom system provides a minimum focusing distance of 0.28m/11 inches throughout the zoom range and a maximum magnification of 0.23x at the telephoto end for outstanding performance.</p>
<p><strong>EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM</strong></p>
<p>Created to be a great companion lens for the Canon EOS 70D, EOS Rebel T5i, EOS Rebel SL1 and other EOS Digital SLR cameras with APS-C size image sensors, the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens expands Canon’s line of Stepping Motor (STM) lenses. For entry-level users, this affordable wide-angle lens offers the ability to shoot creative, high-quality images and video in tight indoor locations such as a cozy corner table in a restaurant or unique vacation photos where the subject is close up, yet the surrounding area can still fill the frame.</p>
<p>The EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM ultra wide-angle zoom lens features a compact and lightweight design with an Optical Image Stabilizer for shake correction up to four shutter speed stepsiii, enabling handheld shooting in low light. The lens’ stepping motor and newly designed focus mechanism are ideal for Canon EOS Movie Servo AF (available on EOS 70D, EOS Rebel T5i and EOS Rebel SL1 cameras) to provide smooth, quiet and continuous autofocusing during video shooting, as well as when taking photos.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/6143484591.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-16495" alt="efs1018" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/6143484591.jpg" width="480" height="360" /></a></p>
<p>The EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM ultra-wide zoom lens features one UD lens element to help reduce chromatic aberration throughout the zoom range for excellent image quality with high resolution and contrast. It also features enhanced multi-layer lens coatings to help ensure superb color balance while minimizing ghosting and flare, while a seven-blade circular aperture creates beautiful, soft backgrounds.</p>
<p>Compared to the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM wide-angle lens, the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM ultra wide-angle zoom lens is nearly 20% smaller and 38% lighter. When combined with a compact digital SLR, such as the Canon EOS Rebel SL1 camera, the smaller size makes it very convenient to carry with the camera when traveling. The compact four-group zoom optical system provides a maximum magnification of 0.15x at the telephoto end. The wide-angle zoom range of the new EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is a perfect complement to the currently available EF-S 18-55mm IS and EF-S 55-250mm IS STM zoom lenses.</p>
<p><strong>New Lens Availability</strong></p>
<p>The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM ultra-wide zoom lenses are scheduled to be available in June for estimated retail prices of $1,199.00 and $299.99, respectively. For more information about Canon EF Lenses visit: www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup.</p>
<p><strong>White EOS Rebel SL1 Kit with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens Availability</strong></p>
<p>The Canon EOS Rebel SL1 and EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens kit in white is scheduled to be available at the end of June for an estimated retail price of $749.99. For more information about the white Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Camera kit and the full list of product specifications, visit www.usa.canon.com/eos.</p>
```


----------



## Grumbaki (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

The dreadful pain of time between announcement and reviews.


----------



## traveller (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

A much needed pair of lenses for Canon. 

Let's now hope that the 16-35 f/4L IS is a big improvement on the 17-40 f/4L, especially in the corners. 

The price of the EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is great, a perfect complement to the 18-55 and 55-250 IS STM lenses, so long as it is optically up to scratch. A few fast wide angle to normal primes would help Canon stave off the mirrorless competition ;-)


----------



## candyman (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*


I am not a good MTF reader  :-\ 


Can someone explain to me the IQ difference between the 16-35 f/2.8II and the 16-35 f/4 IS based on the MTF's?
I put them here (upper images are the 16-35 f/2.8II)


----------



## Khalai (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



candyman said:


> I am not a good MTF reader  :-\
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me the IQ difference between the 16-35 f/2.8II and the 16-35 f/4 IS based on the MTF's?
> I put them here (upper images are the 16-35 f/2.8II)



Simple, more contrast (bold lines) and more sharpness in the corners (thin lines), from left to right = center to extreme borders, the higher the lines on the graph, the more transmission of contrast (bold) and sharpness (thin), usually, black lines are for wide open aperture whilst blue lines are for f/8. At least, if Canon did not change its MTF legend 

EDIT: after more observation of those MTF from 16-35/4L, damn, that will be bitingly sharp at f/8. Landscapers rejoice


----------



## candyman (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Khalai said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a good MTF reader  :-\
> ...




Thanks.
So based on the MTF charts, the 16-35 f/4 IS outperforms the 16-35 f/2.8 @f/4 and higher. Hope to see some real field tests/reviews soon.


----------



## dcm (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Reading and Understanding lens MTF charts is a nice writeup about how to interpret the chart.


----------



## candyman (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dcm said:


> Reading and Understanding lens MTF charts is a nice writeup about how to interpret the chart.


Thanks. Great article. I bookmarked it.


----------



## Khalai (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



candyman said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



From the MTF charts, the most significant improvement is at the wide end. At 35mm, the improvement is still there, just not that big. As for the 16-35/2.8 @ f/4 - we can assume that, since even @ f/8, the new lens is better, but you cannot tell that from these MTF, since MTF for 16-35/2.8 are either @ f/2.8 or @ f/8.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Pleasantly surprised by the $299 RRP of the 10-18mm. I sense a sales winner.


----------



## fox40phil (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Hm seems that the 16-35 doesn't has weather sealing? :-\


----------



## Marsu42 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



traveller said:


> Let's now hope that the 16-35 f/4L IS is a big improvement on the 17-40 f/4L, especially in the corners.



It's bound to be, but for me the new lens still won't be worth it as it's double the price of the 17-40L and has shorter focal length so it's less usable as a "standard wide-angle". The problem on the other end is that 16mm isn't really "ultra" wide, so people will keep looking for 14mm- alternatives.

Last not least, of course the IS is no good at all when shooting movement (sports, photo journalism) - for this the corner performance usually doesn't matter since you af near the center on ff.

The one thing this lens is bound to be attractive for is _dual or only use on crop_: If it's sharper in the *center* than 17-40L wide open I'd really love to have the sealed 16-35/4 on my 60d. _7d2 anyone_ :-> ?


----------



## bholliman (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

The MTF's do look very good! I'm also pleasantly surprised by the initial pricing, after reading the introduction I was guessing $1,600 and $350. For a landscape photographer they look like terrific options. I'll be waiting for the hands-on reviews, but the 16-35 immediately goes on my list of most wanted lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



fox40phil said:


> Hm seems that the 16-35 doesn't has weather sealing? :-\



Not sure where you're getting that, but it's listed as a sealed lens.


----------



## TrabimanUK (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Not really interested in either of these lenses or a snow-camouflaged SL1.

100-400mm II and 7D II.

Please.

Soon.


----------



## nvsravank (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?


----------



## danski0224 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

The Year of the Lens has begun...


----------



## EchoLocation (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

fun stuff!
i like the lenses, they seem pretty nice and it's pretty amazing to see Canon price something at $299. Also, the 16-35 is fairly reasonable at 1199, especially compared to the Nikon equivalent. When the price drops in a year or so this will be really nice value.
for me though, the 11-22 and eos-m are perfect.


----------



## dcm (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



nvsravank said:


> B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
> First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?



The 16-35 f/2.8L II and the 17-40 f/4L both similarly require an optional filter to complete the dust and drop protection.


----------



## candyman (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*


Some examples.
They are only JPG and a small size.
Bokeh seems nice.


----------



## Tiosabas (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



danski0224 said:


> The Year of the Lens has begun...



One swallow doesnt make a summer..


----------



## Sabaki (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



nvsravank said:


> B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
> First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?



Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II also requires a filter for complete sealing.


----------



## TrabimanUK (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Tiosabas said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > The Year of the Lens has begun...
> ...



Quite, though one swallow can start a choking fit  Let us hope that there is much more to come.


----------



## Harry Muff (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I can't decide decide if my 16-35 2.8 II is obsolete or not now...


----------



## danski0224 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Tiosabas said:


> One swallow doesnt make a summer..



Killjoy

:'( ;D


----------



## Albi86 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...


----------



## Khalai (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



candyman said:


> Some examples.
> They are only JPG and a small size.
> Bokeh seems nice.



These are supposed to be from 16-35/4L IS? Can you link the source please? 600x400px image is not really evaluable


----------



## Sabaki (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Entry Level Trilogy: 10-18mm, 18-55mm & 55-250mm

Mid Level Trilogy: 16-35 f/4.0, 24-70 f/4.0 & 70-200 f/4.0

Holy Trinity: 16-35 f/2.8ii, 24-70 f/2.8ii & 70-200 f/2.8ii

According to the lineups above, the 16-35 f/2.8 let's the Holy Trinity down somewhat as there's many options out there that rival or best it. 

My opinion and judging by how the MTF charts indicate an obvious improvement in the new wides, I see a 16-35 replacement in the form of a 12-24 before year's end.


----------



## Keem (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



nvsravank said:


> B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
> First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?



I guess many of the L glasses (ex: 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII) reported to have weather sealing, have this feature. The users manual silently claims that the lens becomes sealed when a protection or UV filter is screwed-in to the front of lens.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Interestingly B&H list the lens at $ 1,199 in the UK its listed by Park Cameras at £ 1,199 at current exchange that makes it $ 2,014 our side of the pond. The US price converted is £ 713.00 our side of the pond granted the US price needs the sales tax added whilst the UK price include 20% sales tax (VAT). Even if you add 20% to the US list it comes out at $1,498.75 dividing that by the current exchange rate makes it £ 892.11 making the US price 
£ 306.89 cheaper. Riff off Britain is alive & well.


----------



## Maximilian (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Finally 2014 is starting to see some interesting Canon DSLR releases.
I got a little bit sad only seeing something good from other companies - although it was really interesting stuff.



Sabaki said:


> Entry Level Trilogy: 10-18mm, 18-55mm & 55-250mm
> 
> Mid Level Trilogy: 16-35 f/4.0, 24-70 f/4.0 & 70-200 f/4.0
> 
> Holy Trinity: 16-35 f/2.8ii, 24-70 f/2.8ii & 70-200 f/2.8ii


Sabaki, I think you've really said it right.

These two lenses are making an interesting completion in the lineup of zoom lenses.
Although not personally interested, I see a huge consumer market for the 10-18mm now having UWA for such a good price. And these people are not so much into apertures.

Lets hope there is more down the road this year.


----------



## PhotographerJim (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



bholliman said:


> The MTF's do look very good! I'm also pleasantly surprised by the initial pricing, after reading the introduction I was guessing $1,600 and $350. For a landscape photographer they look like terrific options. I'll be waiting for the hands-on reviews, but the 16-35 immediately goes on my list of most wanted lenses.



Agreed, this looks like it's going to replace my 17-40mm VERY soon!


----------



## Rudeofus (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



jeffa4444 said:


> Interestingly B&H list the lens at $ 1,199 in the UK its listed by Park Cameras at £ 1,199 at current exchange that makes it $ 2,014 our side of the pond. The US price converted is £ 713.00 our side of the pond granted the US price needs the sales tax added whilst the UK price include 20% sales tax (VAT). Even if you add 20% to the US list it comes out at $1,498.75 dividing that by the current exchange rate makes it £ 892.11 making the US price
> £ 306.89 cheaper. Riff off Britain is alive & well.



That may be true, but you Brits got the white rebel first


----------



## Khalai (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



PhotographerJim said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > The MTF's do look very good! I'm also pleasantly surprised by the initial pricing, after reading the introduction I was guessing $1,600 and $350. For a landscape photographer they look like terrific options. I'll be waiting for the hands-on reviews, but the 16-35 immediately goes on my list of most wanted lenses.
> ...



And you're not going to be alone. But first, I have to wait for the usual ripoff price here in EU. My guess is about 40% more (incl. VAT) than the US price...


----------



## candyman (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Khalai said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Some examples.
> ...



Exactly. No RAW.
Source is Canon Netherlands:
http://www.canon.nl/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Wide_zoom/EF_16-35mm_f4L_IS_USM/index.aspx


----------



## dufflover (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Well now that it's official I can go ahead and ask (well think aloud) how the new EF-S UWA will compare against the EOS-M w/ 11-22mm kit, not just IQ but also size (lens alone vs EOS-M combo). Like many I bought it as my UWA along with the M fire sale so I'm keen to see the differences.


----------



## Maximilian (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dufflover said:


> Well now that it's official I can go ahead and ask (well think aloud) how the new EF-S UWA will compare against the EOS-M w/ 11-22mm kit, not just IQ but also size (lens alone vs EOS-M combo). Like many I bought it as my UWA along with the M fire sale so I'm keen to see the differences.


IQ:
Don't know - of course!

Lens (only) size(diameter x lengh)/weight:
EF-S 10-18: 74,6 x 72,0 mm at 240 g
EF-M 11-22: 60,9 x 58,2 mm at 220 g

source:
www.canon.de

your welcome.


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

The 16-45 f/4 IS has my name all over it - okay, my name isn't Canon, IS, or Ultrasonic, but alas, this is a perfect lens for me (I've used f/2.8 on my 16-35 II about 5 times ;D), and my 16-35 II is up for sale - PM me before I change my mind


----------



## infared (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I think that the new 16-35mm IS will be a big seller... if I had all three (17-40, 16-35mm 2.8II), this would be the tempting option.. In Canon's new (absurd) pricing structure I am pleasantly surprised at the intro price of this lens. I think this lens makes the 17-40mm a non-entity (except for price!). When I added an ultra-wide zoom to my quiver I had initially purchased the 17-40mm but sent it right back...What bothered me was the "short throw" in the zoom ring at the wide end. There was very little to no separation between focal lengths. This is not talked about very often, but it was a total deal-breaker for me. I ended up biting the bullet and waiting for a good sale/rebate situation on the 16-35II. In the current spread and pricing of Canon lenses I this this offering and pricepoint seem reasonable (relatively). Although, my last lens purchase was a Sigma (35mm), and my next lens purchase will be a Sigma (50mm), too!.....so perhaps Canon will become even more "reasonable" with their price structure as it has been woobling out of control! 8)


----------



## Arctic Photo (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Albi86 said:


> The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...


Ha ha, one can't be suspicious enough...

I think it looks good. Makes me want one even if I am not really in the market for a wide. It will be interesting to see reviews.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Arctic Photo said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...
> ...



+1.
It's making me think of selling my Rokinon 14 (thankfully I talked myself out of it, for now)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

A 14mm prime and a 16-35 are very different tools. Even the difference between 14 and 16 is marked, I can't see how a 16-35 would replace that.


----------



## ewg963 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Khalai said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a good MTF reader  :-\
> ...


+1


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ajfotofilmagem said:


> It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.



Sure the EF-S looks a good price, but the 16-35 is a 17-40 replacement, at 150% the price. Not saying I feel the 16-35 is particularly expensive, and I very much doubt Sigma had anything to do with it at all, just pointing out it is 150% more than the lens it is replacing with less zoom range.


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.
> ...


I think that's pretty typical of Canon's past history when adding IS to lenses - think the 70-200 f/4 vs. f/4 IS., but given the MTF curves, I think it's worth it. Also, I found this on their Japanese site:
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef16-35/index.html


----------



## RLPhoto (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I like the new 16-35L IS. It's not outrageously overpriced, it's mtfs look much better, and it has an ace in the hole with IS. I'll definitely be replacing 17-40L.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

A few months ago I was anxiously waiting for Samyang 10mm F2.8, and when it was finally announced costing $529 I was disgusted. Now Canon has done me a favor by releasing this 10-18mm cheap it will push down the price of Samyang. Thanks canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



I agree, but suggesting Sigma as a reason for reasonable price even when it is 150% of the older version, seems a stretch.

I very much doubt Sigma feature in the Canon bean counters price calculations at all, but if they do, it will be a very small amount.

The really sad bit about this announcement is I think it pretty much kills the notion of a 16-35 f2.8 with IS, which I would be much more interested in, even at twice the price.


----------



## insanitybeard (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I'll await some reviews of the 16-35 IS with interest.... if it's a good 'un I'll add that to my list as a replacement for the the 17-40!

Also, it'll be interesting to see how the EF-S 10-18 measures up against the EF-S 10-22.


----------



## SwampYankee (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dcm said:


> Reading and Understanding lens MTF charts is a nice writeup about how to interpret the chart.



Well thanks for that. Now I understand why that 300mm f2.8 L cost so darn much! I guess Iwill have to teach Mrs. SwampYankke to read MTF charts. Once she understands I am sure she will let me buy it!


----------



## Lee Jay (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Yea! In "the year of the lens", we've started out with two lenses no one asked for.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> A 14mm prime and a 16-35 are very different tools. Even the difference between 14 and 16 is marked, I can't see how a 16-35 would replace that.



I wasn't aware the difference is that marked, having never owned a 16mm lens on FF (or 14mm equivalent on APS-C). However, I do know the mm differences become a larger as you go wide in general, though.
And you are right, they are very different tools- I hope to use the 14mm for night sky photography, where an absence of coma and f/2.8 are both great assets, and the distortion isn't an issue. 
The selling of the 14mm came into play to procure funds for the 16-35mm, so it was a financial decision, not an artistic one.



Marsu42 said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Let's now hope that the 16-35 f/4L IS is a big improvement on the 17-40 f/4L, especially in the corners.
> ...




1. As PBD pointed out, it's not double the price of the 17-40, but 1.5 times.
2. It is pretty sharp all the way wide open at 16mm, and extremely sharp at f/8. You think people will not pay good money for a corner-to-corner sharp 16mm that takes filters?
3. With high ISOs available these days, the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is less than one imagines. Of course, on APS-C every bit helps. 
4. I think the IS will be a much bigger factor when taking architectural photos indoors in poor lighting and without a tripod. 

I think this lens will command a very large market. And yes, 16-35 IS is a great lens on crop, although I would much rather get an f/2.8 or f/1.8 zoom for that.


----------



## insanitybeard (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> Yea! In "the year of the lens", we've started out with two lenses no one asked for.



Speak for yourself, but not for everybody. I for one certainly welcome a new Canon ultrawide zoom if it offers improved corner resolution and sharpness.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



SwampYankee said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > Reading and Understanding lens MTF charts is a nice writeup about how to interpret the chart.
> ...



You better not hope to buy the 50 1.2L then...


----------



## RLPhoto (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



insanitybeard said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Yea! In "the year of the lens", we've started out with two lenses no one asked for.
> ...


Ditto. Especially if you already own a 17-40L and sell it to fund the new 16-35L IS. As I think about it more, this be nice for IS video too.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sagittariansrock said:


> I wasn't aware the difference is that marked, having never owned a 16mm lens on FF (or 14mm equivalent on APS-C). However, I do know the mm differences become a larger as you go wide in general, though.



This has a couple of good fov comparisons. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-14mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Khalai (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



RLPhoto said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



The price difference in my location is around 750 USD, when I sell my 17-40L on the used market. I am really quite excited by this lens


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

We must remember that 17-40mm was a success at the time of the APS-H sensor, when it was the only option for wide-angle standard zoom (22-52mm equivalent). Never was an exciting lens on full frame, it showed its weaknesses in poor corners, and low sharpness. If the new 16-35 F4 has much better quality, that will make many people happy.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

This could be a another winner in Canon line up. 

1. 4stop IS is a huge sale here. Add ND filter to it, you can have silky smooth water fall photo without tripod. 
2. MTF charts look nice & clean compared to 17-40 and 16-35 II
3. Best of all, THE price tag. No need to look for 3rd party with MF

I'm putting my 16-35 II and 50L on Ebay sometimes this week. My crytal ball says 50mm is on the way... :


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ajfotofilmagem said:


> We must remember that 17-40mm was a success at the time of the APS-H sensor, when it was the only option for wide-angle zoom (22-52mm equivalent). Never was an exciting lens on full frame, it showed its weaknesses in poor corners, and low sharpness. If the new 16-35 F4 has much better quality, that will will make many people happy.



I used the 16-35 very happily on all my APS-H cameras, and given the lack of iso capabilities on the majority of APS-H cameras the 2.8 vs the 4 is way more important than the 5mm on the longer end.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.
> ...



I liken this nearly exactly to the 24-70 F/4 IS when it was released. From specs alone, it was deemed nothing other than a length takeaway from the #1 owned L lens, the 24-105 F/4 IS. We all scratched our heads and asked (a) why did _this_ lens happen and (b) why the hell did it cost so much (initially that lens was sold at $1,499 in the US).

_And then we used it. _ It's sharper, has less distortion, and is slightly more compact and lighter to boot. 

This time, with the new 16-35, it appears that Canon didn't shoot for the moon with initial pricing. $1,199 in the US is what you'd expect from a comprehensive upgrade to the 17-40 to cost (despite losing 5mm on the long end).

So I expect this lens to sell well.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

16-35mm f2.8L £ 1,214.00 / $ 2,039

16-35mm f4L 1,199.00 / $ 2,014

17-40mm f4L 629.00 / $ 1,056

For all its faults the 17-40mm f4L will continue to be the big seller because of price and its the 16-35mm f2.8II that may suffer if optically the f4 version is better with the prices this close. Over time the price of the 16-35mm f4L will likely drop midway between the two but right now at close to double the 17-40mm its no threat to that lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't aware the difference is that marked, having never owned a 16mm lens on FF (or 14mm equivalent on APS-C). However, I do know the mm differences become a larger as you go wide in general, though.
> ...



Interesting. Thanks!


----------



## Clik (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Newbie for AWA . I just bought the 17-40 F/4 during the 15% off last week. I am not sure if I need to keep it or return based on this announcement or just buy a lens like Samyang 14mm (with manual focus).


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



jeffa4444 said:


> 16-35mm f2.8L £ 1,214.00 / $ 2,039
> 
> 16-35mm f4L 1,199.00 / $ 2,014
> 
> ...


Your EU prices are painful to see, and I'm sure the 17-40 isn't going anywhere, but I bet Canon is going to sell a ton of these new lenses. I'm really excited to get my hands on one and see it getting way more use than my 16-35 II.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

B&H Photo pricing

16-35mm f2.8LII $ 1,699

16-35mm f4L 1,199

17-40mm f4L 839

Better spread than UK pricing


----------



## Radiating (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Here's my take on it. Before today there were 3 wide angle zoom lenses that didn't have noticeable image quality problems, between all first and third party lenses (the 17-40mm did have a few exceptionally sharp copies, if you were lucky like the one tested by DXO but most were bad and all copies had really really crazy harsh bokeh, which was a serious flaw).

These 3 good wide angle zooms were the following:

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR
Canon 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 STM IS (EOS M)

These were basically the only wide angle zooms worth getting if you didn't want seriously noticeable flaws in your photos. That's why I have a nikon 14-24mm on my 5D3, as do many other pros.

Now there is a fourth option, the Canon 16-35mm IS. The 11-22mm for the EOS M is still sharper than this new 16-35mm IS based on the MTF data (removing the mirror enables incredible improvements in image quality for wide angle lenses, seriously the 11-22mm STM is insanely good, better than any of Canon's other full frame options), and the Nikon 14-24mm is still king hands down, but Canon now actually has a wide angle zoom lens for full frame that isn't too bad.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Clik said:


> Newbie for AWA . I just bought the 17-40 F/4 during the 15% off last week. I am not sure if I need to keep it or return based on this announcement or just buy a lens like Samyang 14mm (with manual focus).


Shoot her in F4 F5.6 F8 and see if the image is good enough for your use. If you want to print large sizes, I imagine it will be a little disappointing in F4, but must be sufficiently sharp in F11.


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

And the news keeps getting better . As I had hoped, it comes with a much more compact lens hood than the 16-35 II - it looks very similar to the 24-70 II hood:






Source: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051478-REG/canon_9528b001_ew_82_lens_hood.html


----------



## dlleno (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

anyone pre-ordered yet to fill an anticipated need? B&H has no availability info / Amazon says first availability june 30th. tempted.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

As for me, I never purchased an UWA replacement for my EF-S 10-22 when I got the 5D3 two years ago. So this is one worth looking at. 

This lens has a lot going for it as it pertains to what I shoot:


MTF charts claiming it is much sharper than Canon's alternatives in that focal length? Check.
Front-filterable + 77mm front element = a seamless drop-in to my Lee 77mm ND Grad / 10 stop ND setup? Check.
Weather-sealed? Check.
Internal focusing and zooming? Check.
USM? Check.
Lightweight like one would expect an F/4 zoom to be? Check.
Rounded aperture blades for sweet portraits of mountains in front of a lot of city streetlights? Check.
Utterly useless L series lens pouch? Check _and fist pump_.
Do I _need_ this lens? (Note from Canon: a check here is optional.)

Looks solid on paper. Now I begin the fun game of 'do I pre-order now or or do I wait for data?'.

- A


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dlleno said:


> anyone pre-ordered yet to fill an anticipated need? B&H has no availability info / Amazon says first availability june 30th. tempted.


Yes, I pre-ordered this morning - B&H wasn't available to pre-order last night and Adorama & Amazon were, but Adorama wanted $10 to ship (vs. B&H free) and stupid Amazon started charging sales tax here in Florida last week  :'(.

This lens is going to be perfect for me - I rarely bring my 16-35 II along because of the size and ridiculous hood and have almost never used f/2.8. I don't really need IS, but I think that might be nice once I start using it. The MTF curves and samples from the Canon Japan link showing sharp corners with no CA look amazing so I'm sold. If I shoot in low light, I usually use my 24 f/1.4 II, so I can live without the single stop. B&H tends to get the first shipment, so I guess it will be coming sometime in late June, and I can't wait.


----------



## Clik (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ajfotofilmagem said:


> Clik said:
> 
> 
> > Newbie for AWA . I just bought the 17-40 F/4 during the 15% off last week. I am not sure if I need to keep it or return based on this announcement or just buy a lens like Samyang 14mm (with manual focus).
> ...



Thanks, will test it. I know its hard to avoid buyers remorse after return window, but at the same time don't want to keep an older version if its reasonable to get the new one which I can keep for years to come.


----------



## JonAustin (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I just posted my 17-40 for sale on craigslist. I'll probably use the funds from the sale for the 35/2 IS I've been planning to buy during the current instant rebate period. 

But I do plan to buy the new 16-35/4 IS later this year. My 17-40 hasn't gotten much use since I went full frame, due to its lack of IS, lackluster off-center performance and my possession of a good 24-105. A 16-35/4 with much improved optical performance and IS will give me more reasons to use it.


----------



## dlleno (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



mackguyver said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > anyone pre-ordered yet to fill an anticipated need? B&H has no availability info / Amazon says first availability june 30th. tempted.
> ...



I just bit the bullet. pre-ordered from both Amazon and B&H. Amazon may get a larger allocation and they said they would notify me via email when they have a ship date. I figure this way I'll get which ever ships first and cancel the other.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

So was the white SL1 our rumored DSLR announcement? :


----------



## Act444 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I'll wait for reviews first. The thing is though, already having an M/11-22 on top of the 16-35 2.8 wouldn't make this an attractive option for me. But I am curious to see how it performs. The 11-22 is quite good. If this new lens can match that on an FF sensor, that's a good thing.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



RLPhoto said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I have owned the 17-40L for a long time (wonderful lens), and have thought of selling it without buying a direct replacement. I find I use my 15mm fisheye at least 20 times more than the rectilinear ultrawide.

My point was, no one asked for this. People seem to have been clamoring for a14-24/2.8 instead of a 16-35/4 with IS.


----------



## dlleno (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



mackguyver said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > anyone pre-ordered yet to fill an anticipated need? B&H has no availability info / Amazon says first availability june 30th. tempted.
> ...



+1. yea I'll pay the early adopter fee but when one has a need.... 

I'm thinking a manual focus prime like the Rokinon 14mm would fill the low light needs and be a good companion to this one.


----------



## Zv (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ajfotofilmagem said:


> Clik said:
> 
> 
> > Newbie for AWA . I just bought the 17-40 F/4 during the 15% off last week. I am not sure if I need to keep it or return based on this announcement or just buy a lens like Samyang 14mm (with manual focus).
> ...



I have both the Samyang 14mm and 17-40L and after some testing of both I found my copy of the 17-40L to be rather good from f/8 - f/11, which is where I use it most often. At 17mm the image is sharp and even the corners look acceptable to me. I love the Samyang but the bottom left corner of my copy is softer than the others even stopped down. But the overall IQ is great for the price. 

I'm gonna wait for the price to drop on the 16-35IS a bit, maybe in about a year once I've saved up and in the meantime shoot with what I have. I think you should just get the Samyang anyway, it's a really fun lens! 

Link to some pics taken with the Samyang - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20898.msg395994#msg395994


----------



## Eldar (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

This thread went from 0 to 6 pages in less than 12 hours ... I dare say there is some interest :

It looks interesting to me, but I was hoping for the 12/14-24mm super UWA. Guess I´ll be waiting a bit longer ...


----------



## Slyham (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Smart moves by Canon. As an enthusiast I will speak to the entry level Canon gear. Canon greatest competitor to their entry level gear is not Nikon or Sony, it’s the smartphone. How is Canon responding? Very well in my opinion.

It was just over a year ago that Canon announced the 18-55 IS STM lens. Then came the 55-250 IS STM lens. Now the 10-18 IS STM lens. All entry level, all very affordable, and as for the 18-55 and 55-250, a huge improvement over their predecessor.

All lenses have STM. An improvement over micro-motor for stills and awesome for video.

All lenses are rear focusing with no rotation or extension while focusing. A huge improvement when working with a CP filter. They also have full time manual focus in some form. These focus characteristics where only found in much more expensive lenses.

Assuming the 10-18 is at least as sharp as the 18-55 and 55-250, all these lenses have great IQ for the price.
So in a matter of a year and a half Canon has significantly improved its entry level line up of lenses.

The next move is to put a DPAF sensor in a Rebel. That Rebel kitted with 10-18, 18-55, and 55-250 for about $1200 would be a killer kit.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > insanitybeard said:
> ...



People clamor for focal lengths that are not currently offered, but all the landscape guys (who aren't shooting Zeiss or adaptored 14-24s) have been asking for a sharper cornered 16-35 or 17-40 for ages. This lens has demand and, based on the MTF charts, will sell quite well.

- A


----------



## tron (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> A 14mm prime and a 16-35 are very different tools. Even the difference between 14 and 16 is marked, I can't see how a 16-35 would replace that.


+1 especially since the zoom is an f/4 lens making it less suitable for landscape astrophotography.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > insanitybeard said:
> ...


Again, speak for yourself. I don't own a fish eye and never would own one but a rectilinear UW gets much use. I do believe many have asked for a sharper 17-40L.


----------



## Schruminator (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

This lens looks solid, but after selling my 24-105 I swore I'd never buy f/4 or slower again. On top of that, I'm a huge fan of night time and star shots-- so besides the f/4, I'm curious to see if the coma will be well controlled. My fingers are crossed for a 2.8 non-IS to come out on the coattails of this lens.

(And yes, I know all about Samyang's lenses and I've owned one or two, but I'm just not a fan of the build quality and lack of AF)


----------



## Zv (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Slyham said:


> Smart moves by Canon. As an enthusiast I will speak to the entry level Canon gear. Canon greatest competitor to their entry level gear is not Nikon or Sony, it’s the smartphone. How is Canon responding? Very well in my opinion.
> 
> It was just over a year ago that Canon announced the 18-55 IS STM lens. Then came the 55-250 IS STM lens. Now the 10-18 IS STM lens. All entry level, all very affordable, and as for the 18-55 and 55-250, a huge improvement over their predecessor.
> 
> ...



I agree, with an SL1 and these three EF-S lenses plus maybe one small fast prime like the 35mm f/2 IS it would be an ideal travel around the world kind of kit. You could fit that in one small backpack easily. 

I think the EOS M system could use a 55-250mm lens too.


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> My point was, no one asked for this. People seem to have been clamoring for a14-24/2.8 instead of a 16-35/4 with IS.


No one you know, perhaps, but there has been a lot of demand for this type of lens and the vast majority of UWA shots (if you tally up 500px, Flickr, etc.) are shot at f/8 or above, so f/4 is plenty fast. Nikon's competitor is a best seller so this lens makes a lot of sense and I predict that Canon will sell a ton of them, particularly since they are introducing it at a realistic price.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



RLPhoto said:


> Again, speak for yourself. I don't own a fish eye and never would own one but a rectilinear UW gets much use. I do believe many have asked for a sharper 17-40L.



If you are in the 14mm rectilinear market, and many are not, then the original Canon EF 15mm fisheye defished beats the pants off many, including, in my experience (with two different models), the Canon 14mm MkII.

The fisheyes are way more than just a silly niche, they can be put to very creative use, software expands that potential exponentially and at very high IQ levels.


----------



## Slyham (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Zv said:


> I think the EOS M system could use a 55-250mm lens too.



Agreed. And release the 11-22 for Canon USA. :

I think Canon should release a DPAF Rebel and M at the same time and watch the sales numbers. I think that would help determine where mirrorless stands in the entry level market.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



RLPhoto said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



+1.
It is amazing how people who make sure to collect data before making a move in their professional lives just through ideas and speculations in the air without any evidence to the contrary.
One can say 'I'm not aware of anyone asking for this' but to say 'I'm aware no one asked for this' is plain ignorant.
Btw, Canon conducts market research before releasing products and doesn't rely on speculations.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> Yea! In "the year of the lens", we've started out with two lenses no one asked for.


I remember hearing many people here in CR asking for a 16-35mm sharp from corner to corner, rather than the mythical 14-24mm. : The neighbor's grass always looks greener. 8)


----------



## infared (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.
> ...



I do not think of the 16-35 as having less zoom range......17-16mm is more significant than you would think. 
Also...I returned my 17-40mm in one day because the zoom "throw" of the zoom ring was non-existent at the wide end....like super abrupt....not spread out like at the other end. I know everyone has a different take and no one is right or wrong..but I just don't need 35-40mm. I have a 24-70mmII an the 16-35mm II now...If I am going out with just zooms..its a nice overlap...the 16-35mmII is weakest (sharpness) at the 35mm end...and the other lens handles that area quite handily......
I bought the 17-40mm initially to save money and ended up getting rid of that notion! LOL!


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



infared said:


> I have a 24-70mmII an the 16-35mm II now...If I am going out with just zooms..its a nice overlap...the 16-35mmII is weakest (sharpness) at the 35mm end...and the other lens handles that area quite handily......


Have you compared them at 24mm as well? I took a shot of a Live Oak covered in Spanish moss and the resolution difference between the two was shocking. It looked like the 16-35II was out of focus (I manually focused using LiveView) in the center and the corners, well, I don't even want to go there. I really like the 16-35 focal length and ability to use filters, but compared to my other lenses, the 16-35 II is a disappointment. 

And I agree, the 1mm of difference is a lot more than you'd think.


----------



## fox40phil (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



nvsravank said:


> B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
> First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?



thx for the info!


----------



## mrsfotografie (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Aside from the focal length range (16mm is nice but 35 mm is limited) the lens did gain girth and weight compared to the 17-40 which is an important part of my travel kit. I replaced the Tamron 70-300 with the 70-300L this year and that was already a significant increase in weight, so before long my 'travel kit' will become too heavy and/or bulky. Travel kit = 17-40L, 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.8, 24-105L, 70-300L, 5D Mk II(I) gripless.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



infared said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Oh, I am sorry, I was using the decimal numerical system, in that system the range 16-35 has 4 digits fewer than 17-40 hence my confusion on smaller range. 

As for what I think of the 1mm difference between 16 and 17, well funnily enough I have a 16-35 and on two occasions it has gone to Canon and come back with faulty zoom range, it only went to 17 as per the EXIF, I only noticed because of that EXIF and didn't bother returning it until it needed other work anyway. A lot depends on the "true" focal length we actually get when we focus closer than infinity anyway. I have noticed a decent difference between 16mm on zooms and the 14mm primes, but I suspect that is partly to do with the zooms actual focal length being distorted and the prime being closer to "true".


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



mackguyver said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 24-70mmII an the 16-35mm II now...If I am going out with just zooms..its a nice overlap...the 16-35mmII is weakest (sharpness) at the 35mm end...and the other lens handles that area quite handily......
> ...



I have noticed, with my 16-35, it is very particular and susceptible to IQ variation over time. I don't pamper my gear, though I don't treat it badly (well maybe a bit), but of all my lenses the 16-35 is the easiest to get out of true, whereas all my other lenses are all much more consistent.


----------



## mackguyver (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...


That's possible, though I haven't used my 16-35 nearly as roughly as my other gear, but in reality, I think it's just the difference in lenses or maybe I got a really amazing copy of the 24-70 II.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > insanitybeard said:
> ...



what planet are you on?

canon's needed a sharp corner to corner UWA zoom since the dawn of the full frame sensor on the 1Ds. most of us adapted nikkors or contax / yashica lenses because there was no other viable option until the 17mm TS-E came out.


canon's even putting their money where their mouth is .. and stating. this lens is sharp in the corners wide open with minimal CA to boot.

http://cweb.canon.jp/pdf-catalog/eos/pdf/ef-ef16-35mm-f4l-is-usm.pdf


----------



## aroo (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Is it just me, or are the 16-35 MTF charts kind of astonishing? Compares favorably to Nikon's lens of the same specs, and sharpness lines even look a bit like the Sony 55mm's.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



aroo said:


> Is it just me, or are the 16-35 MTF charts kind of astonishing? Compares favorably to Nikon's lens of the same specs, and sharpness lines even look a bit like the Sony 55mm's.



It compares favorably to the 14-24 as well, IMO. Yes, different apertures- but the 14-24 is considered a landmark in UWA sharpness.



sagittariansrock said:


> A comparison with the revered Nikon 14-24 in terms of sharpness and resolution:
> 
> 
> 16-35/f4L14-24/f2.8


----------



## Khalai (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sagittariansrock said:


> aroo said:
> 
> 
> > Is it just me, or are the 16-35 MTF charts kind of astonishing? Compares favorably to Nikon's lens of the same specs, and sharpness lines even look a bit like the Sony 55mm's.
> ...



Not that you can reliably compare MTF charts from different manufacturers, but Nikon still has a slight edge on the wide end (not to mention 14mm vs 16mm and f/2.8 vs f/4, but I like IS and filter thread any day much more), but that means that Canon has finally some impressively sharp UWA in their arsenal. Can't wait to see reviews and moreso field tests and real images


----------



## RLPhoto (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Again, speak for yourself. I don't own a fish eye and never would own one but a rectilinear UW gets much use. I do believe many have asked for a sharper 17-40L.
> ...


Good for you PBD. I'd love to see some nice creative shots with your work with fisheyes, stretched or un-stretched. There is many users who enjoy fisheyes and seen great shots with them, but I still have no need for one.


----------



## thedman (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

So do we have an approximate date that these will be available? I know "June", but I'm leaving on a trip June 28th and would love to have the 16-35 with me.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Again, speak for yourself. I don't own a fish eye and never would own one but a rectilinear UW gets much use. I do believe many have asked for a sharper 17-40L.
> ...



Yes, and I use the Sigma which is, to me, on par with an L-prime optically. It's simply outstanding, and very flexible, not to mention a lot of fun to use.


----------



## Etienne (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I can see a 16-35 f/4L IS in my bag for christmas


----------



## dlleno (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



thedman said:


> So do we have an approximate date that these will be available? I know "June", but I'm leaving on a trip June 28th and would love to have the 16-35 with me.



B&H and Adorama won't say, and Amazon claims first availability June 30


----------



## Lee Jay (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Can you tell which are fisheye, which are rectilinear, which are fish and which are defished?


----------



## Trovador (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I'll play! 

1. fisheye
2. rectilinear
3. fisheye
4. Defished to rectilinear

yes? no? maybe?


----------



## Trovador (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I'll take one 16-35 f/4L IS to go please.


----------



## MichaelHodges (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Cool. As much as people tend to poke fun at Canon here, these lenses look great _and_ are reasonably priced.

The 16-35 IS has me drooling a bit. And certainly, the 10-18 is an amazing deal.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



candyman said:


> I am not a good MTF reader  :-\
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me the IQ difference between the 16-35 f/2.8II and the 16-35 f/4 IS based on the MTF's?
> I put them here (upper images are the 16-35 f/2.8II)



Keeping it really simple: the higher the lines, the better

a touch more complex: the black are for wide open (note that in your case you are comparing f/2.8 vs f/4 for the black lines so that's not really a fair comparison) , the blue for f/8

and bit more complex: the thick lines are for contrast bite and the thin lines are for resolving fine details and the dotted vs. dashed tells radial from tangential direction (since the performance tends to not be the same in both directions of measurement; some say that the closer the radial and tangential lines are to each other in each of their pairings the better the bokeh, but it is likely a lot more complicated than that).


----------



## Cali_PH (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Fan-freakin-tastic, this is exactly what I was hoping for this year. And specifically f4 for the lower weight and price, since I shoot landscape f8-f11 most of the time. Already have the Rokinon 14mm for astro work. I was just telling someone I wanted a new sharper 17-40 or 16-35 f/4 about 2 weeks ago, but expected it to be $1500+ if they ever made one. Can't wait to see some tests!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Cali_PH said:


> Fan-freakin-tastic, this is exactly what I was hoping for this year. And specifically f4 for the lower weight and price, since I shoot landscape f8-f11 most of the time. Already have the Rokinon 14mm for astro work. I was just telling someone I wanted a new sharper 17-40 or 16-35 f/4 about 2 weeks ago, but expected it to be $1500+ if they ever made one. Can't wait to see some tests!



+1


----------



## zim (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

16-35 yussss..... The 17-40 was on my list but not now. That's the Christmas bonus spent already, just need to get to Christmas!!!! ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Might just have to get the 16-35/4L IS. Selling the 16-35/2.8L II would cover the cost. Less than 15% of my 16-35L shots are wider than f/4, and of those a reasonable fraction are of static subjects where 3-4 stops of IS would be of more benefit than 1 stop of light. Sharper would be welcome, too. 

Bummer (for me) about the 77mm filter size, as the 24-70/2.8L II and TS-E 24L II both use 82mm, as does the 16-35/2.8L II. I have the needed filters in 77mm (B+W Käsemann CPL, 10-stop ND, and the Lee WA adapter), it just means carrying them, too.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



nvsravank said:


> B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
> First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?



Yeah, 17-40L among others.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Tiosabas said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > The Year of the Lens has begun...
> ...



not even if it is European and unladen?


----------



## dlleno (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



neuroanatomist said:


> Might just have to get the 16-35/4L IS. Selling the 16-35/2.8L II would cover the cost. Less than 15% of my 16-35L shots are wider than f/4, and of those a reasonable fraction are of static subjects where 3-4 stops of IS would be of more benefit than 1 stop of light. Sharper would be welcome, too.
> 
> Bummer (for me) about the 77mm filter size, as the 24-70/2.8L II and TS-E 24L II both use 82mm, as does the 16-35/2.8L II. I have the needed filters in 77mm (B+W Käsemann CPL, 10-stop ND, and the Lee WA adapter), it just means carrying them, too.



yea I'm glad I waited and was pleasantly surprised at the price. I just pre-ordered. now pondering the Lee setup and solving the vignetting issue... I'm hearing that even the Lee + 105mm adapter + B+W CPL will vignette wider than 20-ish?


----------



## iMagic (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Good enough for neuroanatomist good enough for me. I plan on getting one.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> A 14mm prime and a 16-35 are very different tools. Even the difference between 14 and 16 is marked, I can't see how a 16-35 would replace that.



by putting $250 back in your pocket and being close enough


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



that first one looks awfully sharp at the extreme edge for f/4! I assume that is FF and not APS-C test they snuck in??


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Dylan777 said:


> This could be a another winner in Canon line up.
> 
> 1. 4stop IS is a huge sale here. Add ND filter to it, you can have silky smooth water fall photo without tripod.
> 2. MTF charts look nice & clean compared to 17-40 and 16-35 II
> ...



+1


----------



## Dantana (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I've been stalking the Canon refurb pages waiting for a 17-40 that's both on sale and in stock. Now, I have this to consider.

I love the idea of a sharper lens, and the extra mm at the wide end. The 5mm lost at the long end is all overlap with my 24-105.

To be honest, the IS isn't that important to me. For me, a little smaller and lighter would have been more important than the IS, but maybe when I have one in my kit I'll be raving about the IS.

I'll be waiting a little on real reviews, and then on price (unless my income suddenly spikes). It does look very promising though.


----------



## VitC (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ewg963 said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



There's a good explanation of Canon's MTF charts: http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/reading_MTF_charts.shtml


----------



## Cali_PH (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dlleno said:


> yea I'm glad I waited and was pleasantly surprised at the price. I just pre-ordered. now pondering the Lee setup and solving the vignetting issue... I'm hearing that even the Lee + 105mm adapter + B+W CPL will vignette wider than 20-ish?



Yes, vignetting becomes an issue around then. Fortunately there are UWA adapters that set the filters closer. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87147-REG/LEE_Filters_WAR077_Adapter_Ring_77mm.html

EDIT - you can find cheaper version on eBay but I've had mixed results, where the threading wasn't as clean as the LEE version, so YMMV


----------



## raptor3x (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> Can you tell which are fisheye, which are rectilinear, which are fish and which are defished?



1. Rectilinear
2. Fisheye
3. Fisheye
4. Defished


----------



## raptor3x (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



nvsravank said:


> B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
> First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?



The only 'weather-sealed' lenses that don't have that stipulation are the super-tele lenses (not including the 300 F/4 and the 400 F/5.6).


----------



## Albi86 (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Arctic Photo said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...
> ...



It's just that the really good Canon stuff is usually very, very pricey.

This lens is remarkably affordable unless we compare it to the 17-40. In that case, if performance is not a big leap forward, it's very overpriced.


----------



## Ruined (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

My two cents:

This is a much welcomed upgrade to the aged 17-40L. The MTF looks incredible and it will most definitely be sharper than the 16-35 II and 17-40.

Personally, I will be keeping my 16-35 II though for a couple of reasons:
1) I use mine for events. And, f/4 is simply not f/2.8. Less light, longer shutter speeds, potential for motion blur, increased ISO.
2) Less ability to narrow DOF with f/4. It can make a difference even at 16-35mm.

Finally, based on my testing with the 35mm f/2 IS USM, Canons IS is a lot less effective at very slow shutter speeds. Thus I would not put much excitement towards the IS.

The 16-35 II will be less sharp, but for events I believe it will be superior. This 16-35 f/4 looks like a landscape dream though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



raptor3x said:


> nvsravank said:
> 
> 
> > B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
> ...



Actually, no. The requirement for a filter to complete the weather/dust sealing is explicitly stated only for those lens where an inner barrel moves behind the fixed position of the filter thread. Among current lenses, that includes the 16-35/2.8L II, 16-35/4L IS, 17-40L, and 50/1.2L. Canon does not state that a filter is required to complete the sealing of any other 'sealed' lens, although Chuck Westfall has recommended using a front filter on any sealed lens that accepts one.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



neuroanatomist said:


> Bummer (for me) about the 77mm filter size, as the 24-70/2.8L II and TS-E 24L II both use 82mm, as does the 16-35/2.8L II. I have the needed filters in 77mm (B+W Käsemann CPL, 10-stop ND, and the Lee WA adapter), it just means carrying them, too.



The 77 is great news for me -- I have 77mm B+W UV and CPL filters and a 77mm Lee wide angle ring. I haven't had to make the 82mm plunge yet.

My only hangup? The Lee setup with two slots and a monster 105 CPL in front will certainly vignette in the FL I'd be buying this lens for. So if I use this with the Lee setup, I'd need to pick my battles between ND grad, big stopper and the CPL. At 16mm, I'll probably get to use only one of three tools. But, in fairness, that's no fault of this lens, that's the reality of slapping so much stuff in front of a UWA lens.

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Exactly, not only did NOT no one ask for this, I think perhaps every single Canon user other than Lee Jay actually did ask for this and has been asking for this for some years! Looks to be awesome!


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Cali_PH said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > yea I'm glad I waited and was pleasantly surprised at the price. I just pre-ordered. now pondering the Lee setup and solving the vignetting issue... I'm hearing that even the Lee + 105mm adapter + B+W CPL will vignette wider than 20-ish?
> ...


Yeah, the biggest issue is if you are using a CPL in front of the Lee setup, like shown on my 24-70 F/4. They are big and knock a couple mm off your useable FL without vignetting. See CPL comparison of the 105 vs the 77 rail thickness -- both are from B+W, I think many people here use that B+W 77 CPL so they can appreciate the thickness difference.

Lee's is just as big, though there are slim ones available from other manufacturers. I wanted a solid ring to control so I went with the B+W. 

B+W also sells a nuts _stepped_ one where the thread is 105mm for the Lee ring but the front is +15-20mm or so bigger (!!!) to avoid this very vignetting problem, but I opted against it for cost and lack of any reviews to speak of (at the time of my purchase in January). It is here, of curious:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/856348-REG/B_W_66_1071051_105mm_Kaesemann_Circular_Polarizer.html

Keep in mind, this forum has taught me all kinds of other ways to pull off CPL use with a Lee rig (square 4x4 if no ND grads are in the holder, 4x4 CPL with tandem holders, using a lens-sized CPL right on the lens and hooking the Lee rings into that, etc.) but all are clunky/klugy/less than ideal -- you have to choose what works best for you.

I know I'm horrifically OT, but this stuff matters in sizing up this new lens to me. I want wider than 24 but I looooove the options the Lee setup gives me. It's a classic tradeoff.

- A


----------



## raptor3x (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



neuroanatomist said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > nvsravank said:
> ...



Hmnn, interesting, I thought even the 70-200 needed a filter to complete the weather sealing. I always thought that was a bit odd but this makes more sense.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Exactly, not only did NOT no one ask for this, I think perhaps every single Canon user other than Lee Jay actually did ask for this and has been asking for this for some years! Looks to be awesome!



Agree the new 16-35 looks terrific. But as much as we all want sharper wide lenses, there are a number of 14-24 F/2.8 holdouts that will not get in on this new 16-35.

- A


----------



## unfocused (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



raptor3x said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



I thought I remembered that when Canon introduced the 70-300 "L" they had some publicity photos of the lens with water droplets on the front element. I just looked it up and found this on the Canon site: "the lens is dust- and water-resistant, and now also features a newly-developed Fluorine coating that resists smears and fingerprints"


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



rrcphoto said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Speaking of corner shots. I assume they did take them on FF right? And do you know what focal length those two shots were at? Maybe it says it in Japanese?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



thedman said:


> So do we have an approximate date that these will be available? I know "June", but I'm leaving on a trip June 28th and would love to have the 16-35 with me.



Oh man, a few sites had said June 29th .


----------



## unfocused (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

While the new "L" lens seems to be getting all the love here, it's worth taking a look at the MTF chart for the 10-18 STM. 







Compare to the 16-35 "L" f2.8






Others understand this stuff a lot better than I do, but this seems pretty good for a lens that retails at $300. 

It appears this lens may rival the 55-250 EF-S for best bargain lens in Canon's lineup.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



neuroanatomist said:


> Might just have to get the 16-35/4L IS. Selling the 16-35/2.8L II would cover the cost. Less than 15% of my 16-35L shots are wider than f/4, and of those a reasonable fraction are of static subjects where 3-4 stops of IS would be of more benefit than 1 stop of light. Sharper would be welcome, too.
> 
> Bummer (for me) about the 77mm filter size, as the 24-70/2.8L II and TS-E 24L II both use 82mm, as does the 16-35/2.8L II. I have the needed filters in 77mm (B+W Käsemann CPL, 10-stop ND, and the Lee WA adapter), it just means carrying them, too.



No, just get a 77 to 82 step up ring and use the 82mm filters you are carrying on the 77mm lens.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Speaking of corner shots. I assume they did take them on FF right? And do you know what focal length those two shots were at? Maybe it says it in Japanese?



there's mention of a 1DX throughout, but on the image itself there is no indication i can tell at least from translations on what camera they used.

however I have never seen canon use a APS-C on sample images on a full frame camera .. that would be a dirty trick .. but i think nikon did that with the 16-35 VR so who knows?

the villa looks around 35mm and the other shot looks around 16mm

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef16-35/index.html

but we'll have to wait for full samples for sure.


----------



## millan (May 13, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

The 17-40L worked fine for infraphotography. I wonder, how the 16-35 f/4L IS will behave. In general, lenses with IS are more prone to hot spot. What do you think?


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Might just have to get the 16-35/4L IS. Selling the 16-35/2.8L II would cover the cost. Less than 15% of my 16-35L shots are wider than f/4, and of those a reasonable fraction are of static subjects where 3-4 stops of IS would be of more benefit than 1 stop of light. Sharper would be welcome, too.
> ...



+1. 
The only reason I don't use step up rings with my 70-200 is because I like using the hood, but the hoods for the UWA zooms are pretty useless and take up a lot of space.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Ahsanford, how do you like your Arca Swiss double pan head?
I have the sp and I am wondering if I should get the dp...
Ta


----------



## privatebydesign (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sagittariansrock said:


> Ahsanford, how do you like your Arca Swiss double pan head?
> I have the sp and I am wondering if I should get the dp...
> Ta



Dp is 100% the way to go for so much tripod work.


----------



## scottburgess (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*


Meh.

Perhaps if a high percentage of my shots were at wide angles not covered by my other lenses I would consider replacing the 17-40L. The new lens looks better on the MTF charts, but given that the 17-40 is 11 years old I would expect its replacement to be substantially better. At least they kept the filter size manageable at 77mm.

And an EF-S lens and white SL1? Phhhttpppt!!

I would be much more excited by a lens or camera body or software that extends capabilities, that lets me get shots I often think about but cannot do with current stuff I have. The 16-35 f/4 L will do that in some limited cases, but probably not enough to open my wallet.

Of course silly fun counts too. Attached is a first photo from my latest lens, the $25 Lenox Laser pinhole Canon EF cap, which just arrived...


----------



## Brian VA (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I'm really happy to see Canon getting some new and meaningful lenses out. I think what surprised me most was the short amount of time from rumor to preorder. Measured in hours. Although these lenses don't attract me now, the 16-35/4L IS looks to be a spectacular lens that will make many people quite happy and one day I might find myself with one. For now I cover that range with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS which is a very nice lens. I am waiting to see the 7D Mark 2 and the unicorn... I mean 100-400 version 2. Maybe there is at least hope for the 7D Mark 2.... not so sure about unicorns, but I did see a Pegasus at the circus recently.  Maybe there is hope.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Might just have to get the 16-35/4L IS. Selling the 16-35/2.8L II would cover the cost. Less than 15% of my 16-35L shots are wider than f/4, and of those a reasonable fraction are of static subjects where 3-4 stops of IS would be of more benefit than 1 stop of light. Sharper would be welcome, too.
> ...



Smacks the side of my head. Already have a 77→82mm ring, actually, and it'll likely go on after the hood just fine.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



raptor3x said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Can you tell which are fisheye, which are rectilinear, which are fish and which are defished?
> ...



All four are fisheye, none are defished.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



privatebydesign said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Ahsanford, how do you like your Arca Swiss double pan head?
> ...



It is very hard to get the dp clamp just by itself. Arca Swiss's support is rather crappy.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


It doesn't really matter. I don't use fisheyes like that because

1. You have to crop some of the edges to straighten the image.
2. You can't see what your final image will be while composing.
3. I doubt the IQ will be as good as this new 16-35


----------



## wickidwombat (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



unfocused said:


> While the new "L" lens seems to be getting all the love here, it's worth taking a look at the MTF chart for the 10-18 STM.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



looks pretty good, might have to look into one for my parents..


----------



## Lee Jay (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



RLPhoto said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I didn't straighten these, as I said above.

The IQ is as good as my 70-200/2.8L IS II.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

My 50mm f/1.8 has IQ equal to the 70-200II at f/8. So what? How about at f/5.6 or f/4? That's different totally and i don't believe your fish eye has IS either.

You still lose some edges and most importantly, you can't see your composition while you compose. It doesn't work for me but if it works for you, good for you. I won't buy a fish eye anytime soon.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



RLPhoto said:


> My 50mm f/1.8 has IQ equal to the 70-200II at f/8. So what? How about at f/5.6 or f/4? That's different totally.
> 
> You still lose some edges and most importantly, you can't see your composition while you compose. It doesn't work for me but if it works for you, good for you. I won't buy a fish eye anytime soon.



I meant at f/2.8. And I certainly can see my composition while I compose. It's in the viewfinder.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > My 50mm f/1.8 has IQ equal to the 70-200II at f/8. So what? How about at f/5.6 or f/4? That's different totally.
> ...



Wow. You must have a lens sharper than the 14-24 Nikkor. Please do share full-res photos @ 2.8. Id really like to see them and I'm sure many more would too.


----------



## streestandtheatres (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Can someone help me out. Why would I buy the new 10-18 and not the existing 10-22?

What might be the difference in iq?
I can only think I'd use it for landscapes (probably using a tripod, though even without I don't find too little light unless it's way before dawn or if I have a nd filter, in which case I doubt IS would be enough.). I find photomerge works pretty well with a 35mm (and is pretty hopeless at 18mm (my existing widest), and I can't imagine ever taking a picture which included people at less than 18mm due to the distortion.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



streestandtheatres said:


> Can someone help me out. Why would I buy the new 10-18 and not the existing 10-22?
> What might be the difference in iq?
> I can only think I'd use it for landscapes (probably using a tripod, though even without I don't find too little light unless it's way before dawn or if I have a nd filter, in which case I doubt IS would be enough.). I find photomerge works pretty well with a 35mm (and is pretty hopeless at 18mm (my existing widest), and I can't imagine ever taking a picture which included people at less than 18mm due to the distortion.


Smaller, lighter, and costs less than half the price?
Someone who already own lenses covering 18 to 22mm?
Someone who needs STM and Image Stabilizer for video?


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > My 50mm f/1.8 has IQ equal to the 70-200II at f/8. So what? How about at f/5.6 or f/4? That's different totally.
> ...



Great work! These four images and the accompanying explanation completely rationalize the statement "no one asked for the 16-35 f/4 IS".
Look at the number of people within this forum itself who have countered your statement. That is a testament to how many *did* ask for it.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sagittariansrock said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Show me. I saw lots of people looking for a 14-24/2.8. I didn't see anyone looking for a 16-35 or a 10-18.


----------



## tron (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I wonder, will they introduce a 16-35mm f/2.8L III (without IS) in a year or so just to tease (and tempt) us? ;D


----------



## tron (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


You didn't really search, did you?


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Just go through this thread and a couple of others announcing the pre-ordering availability. 

But for arguments sake- let's consider you are accurate in saying "I saw lots of people looking for a 14-24/2.8. I didn't see anyone looking for a 16-35 or a 10-18".
That implies _you_ don't know anyone who has asked for it. Very different from _knowing_ no one asked for it. 

Besides, why do you care? You are taking great photos using your fisheye and existing lenses, and have no reason for spending 1.2K. And who knows, the f/2.8 might be around the corner...


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



tron said:


> I wonder, will they introduce a 16-35mm f/2.8L III (without IS) in a year or so just to tease (and tempt) us? ;D



I don't think Canon will bring out another f/2.8 unless it is something amazing, like the 200-400 1.4x to counter the 200-400 Nikkor.
Now what could that awesomeness be?
1. An amazingly sharp lens wide open. (very likely)
2. A very wide FL, at least 14 but maybe even 12. (quite likely, 12mm possible)
3. IS on a fast lens. (unlikely, IMO)
4. A 12/14mm that takes filters. (very unlikely, IMO)
5. Any other suggestions?


----------



## CANONisOK (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


+1. That's the setup I've been using for a while (82mm expensive filters + step up rings as needed). In fact, I think it was you Neuro who recommended the brass B+W step up rings that I ended up buying and using!


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



CANONisOK said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The B+W filters are made of brass, the step up rings are anodized aluminum.
Keep a filter wrench handy


----------



## EchoLocation (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


December 26th, 2011.... one of my first posts on this forum was me specifically asking for a replacement for the 17-40. One of the main reasons I sold my Canon gear was the 17-40 I used was crazy soft, and the 2.8 didn't get very good reviews.


EchoLocation said:


> What about a 17-40L II? I want a wide walk around lens with a bit of zoom for my 5D. I am considering buying the 17-40 I, but they just don't seem to sharp and this is a very old lens. When's the refresh coming?


----------



## rrcphoto (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sagittariansrock said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder, will they introduce a 16-35mm f/2.8L III (without IS) in a year or so just to tease (and tempt) us? ;D
> ...



I don't know .. i see the 16-35/2.8 II as the only weak link in what is a pretty nice 2.8 and 4.0 three lens set.

you have the 16-35/4, 24-70/4, and the 70-200/4 - all pretty darn good lenses, modern and should scale up well with higher res senors.

the 2.8's are the same . but what this.. oh yeah the ugly duckling .. the 16-35/2.8 II

I wouldn't be surprised to see this updated if/when the hi rez body comes out.


----------



## JustMeOregon (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sagittariansrock said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1 on the filter wrenches suggestion...

The only brass step-up rings that I know of are the ones from Heliopan -- more expensive then the B+W's, but way cheaper then gear with damaged threads... I've used nothing but the Heliopan's for awhile now, and I honestly can't recall ever having them stick.


----------



## dslrdummy (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



thedman said:


> So do we have an approximate date that these will be available? I know "June", but I'm leaving on a trip June 28th and would love to have the 16-35 with me.


DigitalRev in HK often have new products before the main outlets, so worth keeping an eye on them. I bought a teleconverter for my X100s and had it delivered while Amazon and others were still taking pre-orders. Have bought a lot of gear from DigitalRev over the years and never had a problem. Good luck with it.


----------



## dlleno (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

In case it matters.... I've asked for this one since the 16-50 rumor and I'm somebody so therefore it is not true that nobody asked for it. Oh And available June30 per Amazon


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sagittariansrock said:


> Ahsanford, how do you like your Arca Swiss double pan head?
> I have the sp and I am wondering if I should get the dp...
> Ta



It's been a pleasure to use -- I take for granted how easy things are when I can pan above the ball head. 

But I am not remotely good enough at landscape work to warrant such a tool. I've just overclubbed all of my landscape gear purchases lately so that they will last a long time and never say 'sorry, I can't do that' as I develop into a better photographer. It's a lame excuse to amass nice tools, but I'll ride that as long as I can. 8)

- A


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ahsanford said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Ahsanford, how do you like your Arca Swiss double pan head?
> ...



Nice planning though. I have an AS sp Z1. I tried using a Sunwayfoto panning clamp, which doesn't work. RRS has very kindly stopped making a panning clamp that can go directly on a ballhead stem. And Arca Swiss doesn't sell the dp clamp separately. Maybe you want to switch your AS dp clamp for something else and sell me yours 

I think the advantage you are getting is in having a pan above AND below the ball. Having it only above the ball makes it very restrictive.


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



streestandtheatres said:


> Can someone help me out. Why would I buy the new 10-18 and not the existing 10-22?
> 
> What might be the difference in iq?
> I can only think I'd use it for landscapes (probably using a tripod, though even without I don't find too little light unless it's way before dawn or if I have a nd filter, in which case I doubt IS would be enough.). I find photomerge works pretty well with a 35mm (and is pretty hopeless at 18mm (my existing widest), and I can't imagine ever taking a picture which included people at less than 18mm due to the distortion.


Why would you buy the *10-18 over the 10-22* (listed in order of the most to least important reasons):


Cheaper, and considerably so.
IS for stills. Very useful for low light handheld situations with non-moving subject, indoor without a flash, etc.
IS and STM for video. Less shake, quieter focusing, etc.
Newer + shorter zoom range _might_ give it a chance to be sharper, but I haven't looked at the MTF charts.
Lighter and shorter -- more likely to go with you in your bag.
If you have neither lens' diameter filter already and have to buy, a smaller filter diameter will be cheaper.
Less total EF-S money invested if you ever move to a FF body.

Why would you buy the *10-22 over the 10-18* (listed in order of the most to least important reasons):

Faster max aperture -- better for moving subjects when light is challenging. (I'd say the normal adage of 'faster lens = better bokeh' is not a real consideration for this FL unless you like to shoot cows' noses from comically short distances.)
USM focusing speed obliterates STM focusing speed -- vital if your targets are people, animals, sports, etc.
Undoubtedly a better build quality -- that EF-S 10-22 is 'high end for APS-C' build like the EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS. It's not a tank-like L lens, but it's well assembled and solid feeling.
If you have neither lens' diameter filter already and have to buy, 77mm filter thread is far more common for nicer lenses you might buy someday, esp if you ever migrate to FF. Your 'going to use that diameter again' likelihood is a 99% certainty with 77mm.
The 10-22 internally zooms (i.e. doesn't change length while zooming), which is a nice feature -- less moving surfaces to let dirt/sand/junk into the lens, it won't suddenly open up and change length in your bag, it would likely be a more rigid/stable construct in the wind, etc.
Slightly more reach on the long end -- the 10-22 was made to the be APS-C equivalent of the 16-35. In my hands, when I owned the 10-22, I used the 22 end quite a bit as serviceable walkaround FL option. (The 10-18 might make you feel a _bit_ limited in that regard, but it depends on what's in your bag -- there's a really good chance if you get the 10-18, there is a 15-, 17-, 18-something lens also in there, I'd guess.

And if you _*really*_ want to get nerdy and compare, ask Mr. Carnathan:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=950&LensComp=271&Units=E

- A


----------



## AvTvM (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

16-35/4 L IS is a great addition to Canon's stabilized f/4 lineup. It does replace the 17-40. MTFs look good enough to justify launch price. I expect it to sell very well.
It is not a replacement for a 14-24 or the 16-35/2.8 II. Canon will have to come up with a truly superb ultra-wide lens matching or besting nik 14-24. hard to predict whether they will bring both - a huge and expensive 12/14-24/2.8 and a more compact, suitable to regular filters 16-35/2.8 L IS more targeted at event/pj or just one f/2.8 uwa lens. It'll likely be announced with a future high-rez body.

EF-S 10-18 IS STM is clearly positioned to come in somewhat below the 10-22. don't know how many rebel users will pick it up though, despite its low price. Most likely video oriented folks looking for a small and cheap ultrawide with silent STM AF drive.
Personally i wpilf hsve preferred an EF-S 10/4.0 pancake with stellar IQ but still at a decent price. I'd buy that in a moment to replace my 10-22 which i use at 10mm most of the time.


----------



## Zv (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



rrcphoto said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



My thinking is that Canon will make something new like a 14-24 or 12-24 f/2.8 instead of just updating the 16-35 II. If you think about it from a marketing point of view making a version 3 of the same lens is like saying "oh man, it took us three attempts to get it right! Doh, but here you are now!" Or they can be like "hey, look here's something completely new that we cooked up" to help you forget about the version 2. 

Also, now with this new 16-35mm f/4 IS anyone needing this particular focal range but not the f/2.8 aperture in a way already have an updated option.


----------



## Sabaki (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I must say I just love, love the level of knowledge and the eagerness to share. 

I'm a little confused about Lee filters though and was wondering if somebody could just educate me please?

1. The vignetting mentioned in earlier posts at longer focal lengths, is it software removable or is it the actual adaptors that enter the frame?

2. Would a current filter system work with a 12-24 or 14-24 or would a new system need to be developed, based on the dimensions of the front element?

3. Can a filter system be 'adapted up'? Say you purchase a 77mm system and your next lens has a 82mm thread, would a step up 82mm adaptor make the 77mm usable?

4. Kinda similar to question 3. So I can buy a 16-35ii now for a good price and I'll then invest in a Lee system. But if Lee had to create an unique system for the 12/14-24, does that mean having to buy a whole new filter system again?


----------



## Maximilian (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

First prices in Germany for preoder apear:
EF-S 10-18mm: 279,- €
EF 16-35mm IS: 1.019,- €


----------



## sanj (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

16-35 f2.8II was the first lens I ever bought when I got into photography again after 15 years. I was very excited that I had bought (without reading any reviews) a great Canon lens. It was expensive. And then reality hit hard after I took my first few pictures. I could not believe how bad the corners were. Then I slowly realized it was a bad lens and got rid of it. Attached is the photo which I took. Hated the corner sharpness.

Now I have the Zeiss 15mm and 35mm. Canon 24-70 II. But I think this new lens is very tempting.


----------



## tron (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Sabaki said:


> I must say I just love, love the level of knowledge and the eagerness to share.
> 
> I'm a little confused about Lee filters though and was wondering if somebody could just educate me please?
> 
> ...



3. You don't get a 77mm system, you get a system with a 77mm ring adapter. Then you just have to get the 82mm adapter.

2 and 4. Probably unfortunately, either a custom solution or a solution like wonderpana, etc, (when and if it is introduced)


----------



## Marsu42 (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Maximilian said:


> EF 16-35mm IS: 1.019,- €



This is less than expected and good news for the Canon system, obviously Canon doesn't want to go "double the price" premium on all lenses after all.


----------



## Sabaki (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



tron said:


> 3. You don't get a 77mm system, you get a system with a 77mm ring adapter. Then you just have to get the 82mm adapter.
> 
> 2 and 4. Probably unfortunately, either a custom solution or a solution like wonderpana, etc, (when and if it is introduced)



Much appreciated Tron, thanks for answering.


----------



## Maximilian (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Marsu42 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > EF 16-35mm IS: 1.019,- €
> ...


yes, I thought that, too. 
Seems, that this is the MSRP in Germany.


----------



## Tiosabas (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Just checked one of the main dealers in Ireland..Wait for it.....

Euro1399 yes thats $1920

In B&H
$1199 = Euro874

I could book a return flight to New York buy the lens and it would be cheaper. Outragous!

In the same shop the 16-35 2.8 is 100 euros more than the f4 version.


----------



## Jamesy (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

It is interesting to note in the recent B+H article on the new 16-35 F4 Is:

"The EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens has been introduced as an alternative to the current 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens and incorporates an Optical Image Stabilizer."
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/unveiled-two-new-canon-wide-angle-zoom-lenses?cm_mmc=EML-_-NewAnnouncement-CanonLenses-_-140513-_-Body_Explora_Canon-EF-16-35mm-Lens-ReadArticle

Rather than most of the chatter that it is a replacement for the 17-40.


----------



## Jamesy (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sanj said:


> 16-35 f2.8II was the first lens I ever bought when I got into photography again after 15 years. I was very excited that I had bought (without reading any reviews) a great Canon lens. It was expensive. And then reality hit hard after I took my first few pictures. I could not believe how bad the corners were. Then I slowly realized it was a bad lens and got rid of it. Attached is the photo which I took. Hated the corner sharpness.
> 
> Now I have the Zeiss 15mm and 35mm. Canon 24-70 II. But I think this new lens is very tempting.



Excellent shot Sanj - it tells a great story!


----------



## romanr74 (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sanj said:


> 16-35 f2.8II was the first lens I ever bought when I got into photography again after 15 years. I was very excited that I had bought (without reading any reviews) a great Canon lens. It was expensive. And then reality hit hard after I took my first few pictures. I could not believe how bad the corners were. Then I slowly realized it was a bad lens and got rid of it. Attached is the photo which I took. Hated the corner sharpness.
> 
> Now I have the Zeiss 15mm and 35mm. Canon 24-70 II. But I think this new lens is very tempting.



I love the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the creative possibilities it provides but full agree with the corner image quality comment and share the same frustration - see bottom left corner in the picture below. I like doing inside architectural work where I've recently tried to use the TS-E 17mm f/4 instead of the 16-35 f/2.8 II. For this I consider the new 16-35 f/4 with a 4-stop IS superior over the 16-35 f/2.8 II - even more so if the corner quality is as good as the MTF charts suggest.


----------



## CANONisOK (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sagittariansrock said:


> The B+W filters are made of brass, the step up rings are anodized aluminum.
> Keep a filter wrench handy


Ruh-roh, Raggy! I guess I've been lucky not to crank down on them whee using them. Thanks for the heads-up!


----------



## CANONisOK (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



JustMeOregon said:


> The only brass step-up rings that I know of are the ones from Heliopan -- more expensive then the B+W's, but way cheaper then gear with damaged threads... I've used nothing but the Heliopan's for awhile now, and I honestly can't recall ever having them stick.


 Thanks for the recommendation. Now... Off to buy some pricey brass rings! Better safe than sorry!


----------



## rahkshi007 (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

If the fix the weakness of 17-40mm (soft corner) , then this lens is very reasonable priced !


----------



## FunPhotons (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I think for many photogs this might be the ultimate UWA. 

My reasoning is that people tend to focus on IQ and the exotic. The Nikon 14-24 is a wild gem, but you can't put filters on that beast, and do you really need 2.8 for an UWA? Further you gain only an extra 2mm on the bottom end but lose 11mm on the top end compared to a 16-35. I'd contend it's more of a specialty lens, despite the popularity. 

This lens is much more versatile ...


16-35mm is huge range, having 35mm makes it usable for more than just UWA landscape. 
IS
weather sealing with a sane 77mm
Compact size, etc

I use the 16-35II most of the time, this one I think will be on my camera even more. UWA for all the scenery I shoot, and 35mm for the people shots. If I need more light I've got plenty of flashes.


----------



## lycan (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Tiosabas said:


> Just checked one of the main dealers in Ireland..Wait for it.....
> 
> Euro1399 yes thats $1920
> 
> ...



Order it online from Germany/Luxemburg/Holand!.....


----------



## 100 (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Just wrote this in another thread, so I copy and paste it here.

If you want to compare prices you need to value in customs duties and taxes. 

I live in the Netherlands. 
For non-EU imports we have to pay customs duties.
Cameras and lenses are 6.7%
On top of that there is the value-added tax (VAT or BTW in Dutch) which is 21%.

The USD – Euro exchange rate today is about 0.73 so $ 1,000 is € 730 
€ 730 + 6.7% customs duties = € 779
€ 779 + 21% VAT = € 942

American prices are without tax, so if you want compare these with Dutch prices you need to multiply the USD price by 0.942 => € 1,199*0.942 = € 1,129 which is pretty close to the € 1,099 price tag. 
The customs duties in my calculation are based on the retail price, so in reality they will be less because it will be based on what the retailer is paying and not the price you pay in the shop. 

If people want to compare prices they need to figure out if they have to pay customs duties and taxes and how high they are for the country they live in.


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Sabaki said:


> I must say I just love, love the level of knowledge and the eagerness to share.
> 
> I'm a little confused about Lee filters though and was wondering if somebody could just educate me please?
> 
> ...



1 = mechanical elements in the FOV. Not correctable through lens vignetting algorithms -- more like a clone tool fix, but I am a rookie with using these. Others may have slicker tricks.

2 = the kick in the butt. Apparently around 15mm (FF) focal length, most manufacturers give up on front-filterability and the Lee system will not work. So if you are using Lee (there are alternatives), their 100mm system is the one most of us use (for the 16-35 II, 24 primes, 17-40, many Zeiss wides, etc.) Well, apparently Lee thought the Nikon 14-24 was worth engineering a specialized workaround for, and they made the SW150 system _just for that lens: _(http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150). As I understand it, it's not as fully functional as the 100 system as it doesn't support something important.. was it a CPL? It's something non-trivial for landscape folks.

3 = as stated my someone else, you get adaptor rings for the lens' filter diameter. That's really the only added cost once you've invested into the system. $50-60 or so if memory serves.

4 = See #2. The Lee 100mm setup is for front-filtering lenses only. That generally means you are locked out of the fun on lenses with a wide end under 16mm or so (FF, I mean). You could hand-hold certain items in front of wider lenses, but depending on the FL, a 4"x6" (i.e. 100mm) filter may not be wide enough to cover the entire FOV. The next time you have a wide angle lens in your hands, look down over the top of it and imagine the comically wide V of the field-of-view, then imagine how big the flat things in front of it need to be when you get 15, 25, 35mm away from the front element. So a lot of really wide angle shooters (say, with the 16-35), have to thin up their Lee holder to only allow one creative tool instead of stacking two or three.

- A


----------



## dlleno (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Zv said:


> My thinking is that Canon will make something new like a 14-24 or 12-24 f/2.8 instead of just updating the 16-35 II. If you think about it from a marketing point of view making a version 3 of the same lens is like saying "oh man, it took us three attempts to get it right! Doh, but here you are now!" Or they can be like "hey, look here's something completely new that we cooked up" to help you forget about the version 2.
> 
> Also, now with this new 16-35mm f/4 IS anyone needing this particular focal range but not the f/2.8 aperture in a way already have an updated option.



yea the 16-35 f/2.8 II is a conundrum to me, and I suspect Canon's arrogance to continue as well without a version III. They can divert attention from the version II shortcomings by producing key answers to Nikon's present offering as you mention. Those who really want steller IQ at the edges in this focal length range will have several other ways to fulfill their needs. meanwhile the version II will continue to ride on Canon's reputation and the soft-ball glowing reviews that don't want to point out its weaknesses, preferring instead to use such language as "L quality" and "flagship".


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dilbert said:


> Make sure that you understand sales tax in the USA.
> 
> In New York City, buying the 16-35/f4L IS over the counter will cost you over $1300.



Except...you can't buy one today, since the lens is only available for preorder. So, you'd need to have it shipped to your location later, and unless that location is in New York or New Jersey, B&H/Adorama _won't_ charge you sales tax on it (although you're likely responsible for paying sales/use tax in your home state).


----------



## lintoni (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dilbert said:


> Tiosabas said:
> 
> 
> > Just checked one of the main dealers in Ireland..Wait for it.....
> ...


That's still only approx 2/3 of what we're going to be paying this side of the pond. It was a similar situation with the Sigma 50mm Art - which I decided against buying - if it had gone on sale in the UK at an equivalent price to that in the US, I'd have bought one.

Also, some states do refund sales tax to foreign visitors... (edit) only Louisiana and Texas, and that appears to have complications...


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



CANONisOK said:


> JustMeOregon said:
> 
> 
> > The only brass step-up rings that I know of are the ones from Heliopan -- more expensive then the B+W's, but way cheaper then gear with damaged threads... I've used nothing but the Heliopan's for awhile now, and I honestly can't recall ever having them stick.
> ...



You'll be fine with aluminum rings as long as you don't tighten them too much, which you shouldn't anyway.


----------



## iMagic (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I am sure the GMo Glass helps with keeping the price lower. Hopefully Canon's process is up to that challenge.


----------



## Zv (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ahsanford said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > I must say I just love, love the level of knowledge and the eagerness to share.
> ...



I know the 17-40L has this feature but I've never ever heard of anyone using it - gelatin filters that slide in at the rear of the lens. Obviously useless for CPL but could this work as an option for ND filtering? Has anyone had experience with this kind of thing? Seems fiddly. 

Could Canon make the 14-24 or whatever with some kind of rear drop in filter option like the super teles? Or is that idea just whack?!


----------



## Khalai (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Zv said:


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



<joke mode> They could cooperate with Lee and put a slide-in slot just behid the bulbous front element for 100mm filters. IDK about the CLP however. </joke mode>


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Zv said:


> I know the 17-40L has this feature but I've never ever heard of anyone using it - gel filters that slide in at the rear of the lens. Obviously useless for CPL but could this work as an option for ND filtering? Has anyone had experience with this kind of thing? Seems fiddly.
> 
> Could Canon make the 14-24 or whatever with some kind of rear drop in filter option like the super teles? Or is that idea just whack?!



On the _That Idea is Whack_ side:

*Unlike with supertele drop-ins, landscape guys need a lot more options -- NDs and ND grads have a boatload of darknesses and gradations. Canon likely wouldn't climb the mountain to make all that -- it makes a ton more sense to work with a Lee (or other partner) to make a specialized solution for a special lens like what Lee did with the SW150 system.*
Don't NDs and ND grads need to be wider than the FOV frame to avoid inconsistent shading? So you'd need a wider-than-the-mount housing on the lens close to the mount, right? (Dealbreaker or possible?)
Some folks like to focus, meter, etc. with nothing in place first. I'm sure someone with a physics/optics background can conjure up why this might be problematic for a drop-in.
Currently, having big filters with a tight/grippy-slippy fit in the holder allows nicer resolution of adjustments -- think of it like a long 'throw' on a MF lens' focusing ring. Making all that smaller will make fine adjustments difficult.
ND grads don't just rotate, they slide up and down -- not sure how that would work in a rear DI filter format and still not let unwanted debris or light in.
It's been my experience with my Lee setup that I'm often changing them out on location. Changing a rear drop-in strikes me as a problem when we're out in the elements, but in fairness I've never used those DI 52s on a supertele.
Landscape guys like to stack things -- a straight ND, and ND grad, a CPL, etc. -- and some of those items need independent rotation control. That would likely be complicated to control so close to the mount.


On the _Not-So-Whack_ side:

If they pulled it off, it would be a major major scoop over the Nikon 14-24. To my knowledge, a lack of comprehensive filtering options is the only major drawback to that lens.
Filter costs (after the initial orgy of spend to get such a system) would be quite cheap -- mount-sized filters would be a _ton_ less glass.

Neat thinking, though. If they can integrally 1.4x TC a 200-400 or create a 52mm DI option for superteles, anything is possible, but the first bold 'is Whack' above is probably the dealbreaker.

- A


----------



## dlleno (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

nice analysis A. I think our best bet is for the market to see the need for stacked filters in a sub 24mm world. Such a solution might be larger than 100mm and quite costly, but how else are you going to stack an ND, and ND grad, and a CPL in front of a 16mm


----------



## sanj (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Jamesy said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > 16-35 f2.8II was the first lens I ever bought when I got into photography again after 15 years. I was very excited that I had bought (without reading any reviews) a great Canon lens. It was expensive. And then reality hit hard after I took my first few pictures. I could not believe how bad the corners were. Then I slowly realized it was a bad lens and got rid of it. Attached is the photo which I took. Hated the corner sharpness.
> ...



Thank you Jamesy. Not that this picture is anything great but I do realize that it is always the story that matters, not the corner sharpness..


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dlleno said:


> nice analysis A. I think our best bet is for the market to see the need for stacked filters in a sub 24mm world. Such a solution might be larger than 100mm and quite costly, but how else are you going to stack an ND, and ND grad, and a CPL in front of a 16mm



One might argue lens and filter manufacturers should team up in certain focal lengths and co-develop lenses. Keep in mind that filter threads themselves add thickness to the vignetting problem. Killing those off would help.

Less Exciting but also Less Whack Idea: 


The _lens company_ would design a WA lens with a flat front element and no front filter threads or make them removable somehow. This eliminates thickness add #1 -- the filter ring. (Admittedly, lens cap just got problematic.)
The _filter company_ would then use the _lens's hood mount_ (outside of the lens on the barrel, possibly specially designed for this) as the basis to snap on an outrigger a la Lee Foundation that is ever-so-close to flush with the front element. This eliminates thickness add #2 -- the basic hardware to mount the filters.
The final step would be wide as hell filters to support 15-16mm FF focal length needs without vignetting. They might be monstrously big, but it's do-able, right?
- A


----------



## rrcphoto (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



100 said:


> Just wrote this in another thread, so I copy and paste it here.
> 
> If you want to compare prices you need to value in customs duties and taxes.
> 
> ...



not only that, but they are all complaining about the USD price - as if Canon is an american company.

Canon is a Japan company, their products are in Yen. United states atypically gets subsidized because of the market size, however the same can't be said for other smaller zones.

if you look at then price, magically the UK, euro price starts to make alot of sense. but some just want to complain.


----------



## dlleno (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ahsanford said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > nice analysis A. I think our best bet is for the market to see the need for stacked filters in a sub 24mm world. Such a solution might be larger than 100mm and quite costly, but how else are you going to stack an ND, and ND grad, and a CPL in front of a 16mm
> ...



I think the market will always demand the single screw-in filter, i.e. UV and even CPLs. for rectilinear lenses. I wonder if there are mechanical limitations using to the lens hood mount though - it was never intended to support any kind of weight and the last thing you want is breaking bayonet tabs. you would have to supplement with some secondary holding/fastening system, but that sounds doable. 

but I must be missing something here -- if the lens mfg can design the front to accept a screw in filter without vignetting, then Lee can make an adapter to accommodate a new, larger, foundation kit and a larger filter set. However, as you rightly point out, the filter sizes and foundation system required to stack three things in front of a 16mm would be vast, however, and may approach the mechanical limits of the screw mount.


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dlleno said:


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



You are 100% dead on. You could just as easily have replaced my three bullet point idea with:


Do something unnecessary.
Do something unnecessary.
Lee solves the problem with epically large hardware.

The first two ideas I offered were just make the nasty magic wand / deus ex machina solution of 'a company solving it' _less big than it might have to be_. For instance, I haven't done the trig, but the first two bullet points might keep filters down to 6" wide, but _not_ doing those two things might require 8" filters.

- A


----------



## Skirball (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



unfocused said:


> While the new "L" lens seems to be getting all the love here, it's worth taking a look at the MTF chart for the 10-18 STM.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why compare it to the 16-35? It should be compared to the 10-22. I'm sure there are some that want IS, and others that are bargain hunters that will go for the cheaper lens, but unless this thing is markedly sharper than the 10-22 I'd expect it to remain a big seller.


----------



## Skirball (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



As someone who has had the misfortune of going through the last 11 pages in a single sitting, I can confirm that there are many people in the previous pages that said that they are looking for a new 16-35. And as someone who has been looking for one myself and thus has been searching through old threads, the CR community in general has been looking for a new one for some time.

I don't care about IS, and I don't care about f/4 vs f/2.8, for my uses. I just want a Canon EF UWA with reasonably sharp corners at f/4. If this proves to be a step up from the 16-35 and 17-40, at this price point, I will be a very happy man.


----------



## Khalai (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Skirball said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > While the new "L" lens seems to be getting all the love here, it's worth taking a look at the MTF chart for the 10-18 STM.
> ...



EF-S10-18 seems to have a slighty better corner sharpness and better corner contrast on the wide end, according to MTF tables.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Reviewing further US and UK pricing and allowing for taxes the 16-35mm f2.8L II and the EF17-40mm f4L are comparable to US pricing (slightly more expensive). The 16-35 f4L however represents a 21% premium over US pricing in the UK clearly Canon Europe are extracting as much as they can out of early adopters. I will wait until the price comes down.


----------



## Khalai (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



jeffa4444 said:


> Reviewing further US and UK pricing and allowing for taxes the 16-35mm f2.8L II and the EF17-40mm f4L are comparable to US pricing (slightly more expensive). The 16-35 f4L however represents a 21% premium over US pricing in the UK clearly Canon Europe are extracting as much as they can out of early adopters. I will wait until the price comes down.



Converted from my currency (CZK) to USD, estimated price is 1375 incl. VAT  Still, that places it 275 above 17-40/4L and 475 under 16-35/2.8L II, which according MTF and other specs still sounds like awesome deal compared to 16-35/2.8L II...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Lee Jay said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Come on, just search the forums. People were complaining about 16-35 and 17-40 corners and far edges for landscape work for years on FF. People were all over the place wanting a top corner to corner wide zoom, hopefully with IS. Why do you think there have been rumors about a 17-40 II or a 16-50 IS and so on for years too? Because people cared.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Tiosabas said:


> Just checked one of the main dealers in Ireland..Wait for it.....
> 
> Euro1399 yes thats $1920
> 
> ...



Maybe Canon gets kickbacks from the NYC tourism department. ;D

Anyway, yikes, sorry for that pricing. :'(

(although do keep in mind that the euro price include all taxes (??) and the B&H one fails to include the tax and that you have heavier tax but more services so it's a little hard to straight up compare, it still probably comes out a bit worse for you though)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Make sure that you understand sales tax in the USA.
> ...



B&H doesn't charge direct sales to NJ. Only Adorama does.


----------



## Slyham (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ahsanford said:


> streestandtheatres said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone help me out. Why would I buy the new 10-18 and not the existing 10-22?
> ...



+1

I have been saving for the 10-22 but unless the 10-18 is not nearly as sharp I will be getting the 10-18. Main reason is cost. It is less than half the cost and I already have a 67mm CP filter. IS and STM are an added bonus, but it all comes down to cost for the budget photographer.


----------



## dlleno (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

ok I'm tired of seeing arguments about how no one asked for a lens that several of us want and a few have already ordered.

I'm more interested in this topic:



ahsanford said:


> You are 100% dead on. You could just as easily have replaced my three bullet point idea with:
> 
> 
> Do something unnecessary.
> ...



You are spot on. I just ran first order approximation, using a 98 degree horizontal viewing angle and assuming that 77mm diameter threads occur right at the viewing angle boundary. In order to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle at 2 inches beyond this point, the filter surface would have to be 193mm wide. Add margin to that and you are right at 8" just to place something two inches beyond the lens -- and lenses that have 82mm fronts are even worse. I doubt that is going to happen though-- it is 4x the filter surface area and probably 10x the cost. 

This isn't too hard to visualize though. if our filter is only 100mm and the front diameter is already 77mm (or 82mm), then you can see that the 100mm filter will have to be placed very close to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle. 

using a 150mm instead of a 100mm filter would buy us some, but again the cost...


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dlleno said:


> You are spot on. I just ran first order approximation, using a 98 degree horizontal viewing angle and assuming that 77mm diameter threads occur right at the viewing angle boundary. In order to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle at 2 inches beyond this point, the filter surface would have to be 193mm wide. Add margin to that and you are right at 8" just to place something two inches beyond the lens -- and lenses that have 82mm fronts are even worse. I doubt that is going to happen though-- it is 4x the filter surface area and probably 10x the cost.
> 
> This isn't too hard to visualize though. if our filter is only 100mm and the front diameter is already 77mm (or 82mm), then you can see that the 100mm filter will have to be placed very close to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle.
> 
> using a 150mm instead of a 100mm filter would buy us some, but again the cost...



What about making a UWA landscape lens with a super dainty front element diameter, like a 58mm or something? I imagine it would be the world's first 16mm F/6.3 lens (;D), but it lets us apply the 'solve the WA vignetting problem with huge filter hardware' idea on a smaller context, i.e. as a multiple of a smaller starting diameter value. 

The other fix, of course, is to make each layer of the filter sandwich thinner, i.e., thinner slots. I imagine that this will lead to more fragile glass filters or more flexible resin filters, neither of which are a good thing.

dlleno, I don't know if this is a problem we solve or if it's just a reality we cope with. 

(Saying this, I imagine some crusty landscape pro with 30 years of experience shooting Cornwall's shores, all the while holding filters in front of the lens with his frozen hands at dawn, eyeballing his exposure, fiddling with a 40 pound wooden tripod in driving winds, 'it was uphill both ways', etc. just snorted out a "Took those punks long enough to figure that one out.")

- A


----------



## dlleno (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

lol you're right about us punks just figuring this out. Unless the lens mfg comes out with a proprietary mounting and filtering system using custom gels OE from the likes of Lee I don't think and easy answer is coming soon. BTW I don't know enough about the lens geometries to make any generalizations but the benefit of stopping down has to be greater than zero. meanwhile we could get some relief from a 150mm filter and hopefully a more compressed foundation to keep things close; I suspect there aren't many 16mm photos with the benefit of all three: ND grad, ND, and CPL. 

I guess one thing that gave me pause was the very expensive approach of a 105mm adapter plus a 105mm CPL without a prayer of using the UWA FLs . that puts the most expensive piece of glass, and one that requires find adjustment, the furthest away from the lens, making it the largest component. the component that needs to be the furthest away would be the cheapest -- an 8" straight ND for example. 

I haven't tried any of this before, so forgive my ignorance: but suppose one could keep the adjustable elements close to the lens, i.e. a 4" nd Grad and a 4 "CPL, and then hand hold a large ND in front of that assembly, would that work? how often would one need a three-element setup that included a 10 stop ND?


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ahsanford said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > You are spot on. I just ran first order approximation, using a 98 degree horizontal viewing angle and assuming that 77mm diameter threads occur right at the viewing angle boundary. In order to maintain a 98 degree viewing angle at 2 inches beyond this point, the filter surface would have to be 193mm wide. Add margin to that and you are right at 8" just to place something two inches beyond the lens -- and lenses that have 82mm fronts are even worse. I doubt that is going to happen though-- it is 4x the filter surface area and probably 10x the cost.
> ...



How about this for wacky? A curved (along one meridian) filter holder with flexible filters. The curve closely follows the spheroidal front element, and the holder brackets are (rotatable) along the vertical margins of the frame to minimize vignetting, and have spring rollers to allow sliding up/down of the


----------



## dlleno (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

that's some creative thinking, to be sure! so my only worry here is that light does weird stuff when passing through curved media, so my first thought here is phys 201 where we learned that angle of incidence = angle of reflection. Light transmission is going to be critical when three external media surfaces are used, especially if two of the three have to be rotated and/or otherwise critically adjusted with respect to the other. 

I'll yield to the optical engineers to properly express the effects of curved media and of stopping the iris down.

Well I think we've successfully torpedoed the thread. meanwhile did you say you could shoot at 16mm with TWO lee filters in the holder, for example, an ND grad and a CPL? at least one could, with such a setup, use HDR to deal with the amount of light in the scene; you just wouldn't be able to blur the water. How often do landscapers need three media AND 16mm?


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dlleno said:


> I haven't tried any of this before, so forgive my ignorance: but suppose one could keep the adjustable elements close to the lens, i.e. a 4" nd Grad and a 4 "CPL, and then hand hold a large ND in front of that assembly, would that work? how often would one need a three-element setup that included a 10 stop ND?



ND Grad needs independent rotation control.

CPL needs independent rotation control.

Straight NDs do not need rotation control.

So your proposed option will not work in a standard Lee 2 slot setup as you'll be fighting the CPL rotation versus the ND grad rotation. Assuming your ND Grad is king for rotation, you can 'clock' your 4x4 CPL 90 degrees in the holder, but you won't be able to dial-in the degree of CPL effect -- that's a very crude adjustment.

I'd also going to rule out hand-holding either the ND Grad or 4x4 CPL to the front of the apparatus _if the Big Stopper type ND is in use_. You can hand-hold an ND grad for a few seconds, but not for the 30 seconds, 90 seconds, 120 second exposures needed for that.

So your options to use all three simultaneously are (and I welcome others, there all kinds of tricks here it seems):

1) *Get a 105 CPL ring (from Lee), screw it into your holder, and pony up the bucks for the 105 CPL.* It goes in front of your 2 slot Lee holder. Your ND and your ND Grad (or possibly just two ND grads) go in the slots. You use the outrigger/holder rotation to set your ND grad rotation, and you independently use your CPL. 

Pro: Cleanest and easiest method. Oodles of flexibility.
Con: Pricey. Likely vignettes around 24mm (depends. Could be 21, could be 23, could be 25mm, depends on the lens filter thread height, if you are using a WA ring, the CPL rim height, etc.).

2) *Get a tandem Lee holders that allow 4x4/4x6 filters to be independently rotated to one another.* One gets the 4x4 CPL and the other gets the ND Grad. (I'd imagine the straight ND could go onto either plank of this as its not rotation dependent.)

Pro: No need for the 105 ring and CPL cost.
Con: Pretty thick? Still a vignetting on WA still a problem? I've never seen numbers on this.

3) *Screw a standard CPL right on to the lens and then hook the Lee ring and holder on to that*.

Pro: Super cheap as you likely already have a CPL for your lens.
Con: Each time you rotate your ND Grad, you are rotating your CPL and have to fidget to deal with that. That sounds a horrible pain in the butt. Also: Vignetting on WA is still in play as you have effectively made the lens' filter ring 'taller' by stacking a CPL on it -- you can't exactly lose those filter threads with a thin version (or this idea won't work), and the value of the Lee WA ring is lost here as well.

4) This one's a leap, but... *Somehow retro fit the Lee SW150 system to work on a non-Nikon 14-24 lens?* Provided you could find a way to mount it (a foam donut?), you'd get the width of the 150mm, and since it doesn't touch the front of your lens, you could possibly leave a standard CPL on it.

Pro: Possibly slays the vignetting beast on WA (no idea about that -- you may still have to aggressively index the 'lens barrel grabbing end' of this monster towards the front element to pull this off, and the on-lens CPL opportunity may be lost.
Con: Where do you start: cost, time, trouble, larger hardware, bigger filters, etc.

There is another option that is eluding me, and that might be a wiseass one, like giving up on a CPL at 16mm as it will render such inconsistent polarization and reflection control over such a wide FOV. *Perhaps at FL under 24 you pull one slot out of your holder* and leave one tool (the CPL, the ND or the ND Grad) in your bag...

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dlleno said:


> Well I think we've successfully torpedoed the thread. meanwhile did you say you could shoot at 16mm with TWO lee filters in the holder, for example, an ND grad and a CPL? at least one could, with such a setup, use HDR to deal with the amount of light in the scene; you just wouldn't be able to blur the water. How often do landscapers need three media AND 16mm?



And there's the rub. It's terrifying to buy expensive items from day one knowing that you are _not_ future-proofed against a likely photographic need, so this theater of gear selection spirals into overthink very, very quickly. You want to buy, but you don't want to buy the wrong stuff, waste money, and run into limitations of what your gear _can't _do. 

Congratulations, you have finally arrived at where I did three months ago when I bought all my gear. 

That red sentence above was my personal epiphany. That notion had me go for a well-built, very 'dial-in-able' setup with the 105 ring, full well knowing that a future UWA lens purchase would need some disassembly of the holder (or if I was shooting landscapes all the time, have a pre-assembled 2nd Lee holder without the CPL ring or one of the slots, _just_ for UWA use). 

My setup is perfect down to 24mm and with a screwdriver and 10 minutes of F-ing around, I can shoot wider with 1-2 tools in play instead of 3. I'm fine with that.

But if you reeeeeally want to shoot super wide with all the toys, keep tinkering and researching the problem. _Someone_ has figured out how to do this without requiring a mint to pull it off.

- A


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ahsanford said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > Well I think we've successfully torpedoed the thread. meanwhile did you say you could shoot at 16mm with TWO lee filters in the holder, for example, an ND grad and a CPL? at least one could, with such a setup, use HDR to deal with the amount of light in the scene; you just wouldn't be able to blur the water. How often do landscapers need three media AND 16mm?
> ...



I believe Wonderpana has a system.
I just bought the 17mm TS-E which will not work with any system with full functionality, probably except for Wonderpana.
Personally, I will worry about ND and ND grad filters on it the day I run into a lot of problems, repeatedly.
Until then, I will be happy with a cap with a cheap front filter that allows me to carry the lens safely, and to meter without removing it (prior to shift, of course).


----------



## dlleno (May 14, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

oh duh -- the std foundation does not offer independent rotation, which is why the outboard 105mm CPL is an attractive option. As Neuro suggested, and as my calculations confirmed, stacking holders for independent rotation does not sound good from a vignetting standpoint, so to me that's a dead end -- now I see the wisdom of the 105mm CPL. Stick with one foundation and use to ND media, with only one of them requiring rotation. Use the CPL when it is necessary. 

ok so I just just came up to speed where y'all have already been.

Sagittariansrock -- thanks for the pointer to WonderPana. looks to be lens-specific'; I better do some more reading.


----------



## FunPhotons (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ahsanford said:


> If they pulled it off, it would be a major major scoop over the Nikon 14-24. To my knowledge, a lack of comprehensive filtering options is the only major drawback to that lens.



And the size/weight, lack of IS and loss of 11mm at the top end compared to a 16-35mm.

With my 16-35 I have a very versatile lens for my kind of shooting - landscape with some people and general shooting. 35mm is just fine for shooting people and general but 24mm is really too wide for my taste. Likewise 14 is an unnecessary extra 2mm over the 16mm.

My 16-35mm is on my camera most of the time, but I don't like the distortion and frankly don't use the 2.8 due to poor performance. This version, where I lose one stop but gain four more via IS, in addition to 77mm filters, size (mainly in the hood), and especially IQ is a clear winner. This will be my #1 lens I'm sure.


----------



## Ruined (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Khalai said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Reviewing further US and UK pricing and allowing for taxes the 16-35mm f2.8L II and the EF17-40mm f4L are comparable to US pricing (slightly more expensive). The 16-35 f4L however represents a 21% premium over US pricing in the UK clearly Canon Europe are extracting as much as they can out of early adopters. I will wait until the price comes down.
> ...



The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.

16-35 II is a different ballgame though. If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens. In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department. A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion. I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor. The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).

On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.

So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case  IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.


----------



## JustMeOregon (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Well... I _really_ didn't want to contribute to the thread-hijacking, but I just can't help myself 'cause I truly do love my Lee filters...



> You can hand-hold an ND grad for a few seconds, but not for the 30 seconds, 90 seconds, 120 second exposures needed for that.



Sure you can! That's why God created gaffer's tape (on the 8th-day I think it was...)! Honestly, I do it quite often, my tripod is liberally decorated with innumerable scraps of gaff-tape just for sticky situations like this... I have found that the vignetting-culprit is the massively thick 105mm CPL and even then only with the 16-35mm wider than about 22mm on a full frame. So at those times when it's worth the hassle, I will use a 4"x4" square CPL in the front-slot of the Lee filter holder, rotate it to taste, then tape the reverse ND-grad into place. Lastly, I'll add the Big Stopper behind in the other slot. If the exposure is short enough (or I don't have the patience to deal with tape) I'll just hand-hold the reverse ND-grad during the exposure. I hope that this sounds correct, I'm typing via the search-&-destroy method on my iPad...

Now, in an attempt to get the thread back on track...

I pre-ordered the new Canon 16-35 f/4 based on how everyone was drooling over the MTF charts. My question now is, does anyone know of a lens whose sharpness/resolution did _not_ live up to its good looking MTF chart? I'm just considering optical performance here; not AF, build quality, or anything other than image quality.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

The Wonderpana system is very good.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17200.msg320611#msg320611

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16813.msg310758#msg310758


----------



## sfunglee (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens 
wonder shall I go for the 16-35 IS? worth?

also I haven't got my wide for APS-C :-[ , which should I go for?
I) New, 10-18 STM
II) Old, 10-22 USM

Thanks... 8)


----------



## sanj (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



ajfotofilmagem said:


> It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.



I think same.


----------



## Jamesy (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


I live in Canada and B+H have an option (As do Adorama now) for "the price is the price", taxes, shipping and duty included. It is generally cheaper than buying something at the storefront and declaring it at the border as you would likely be dinged tax in NY state along with at the Canadian border. All that 'free' shipping you enjoy in the USA from the big vendors goes away as soon as the item leaves the Conus 48. That said, it is still often cheaper for us to buy cross-border.


----------



## sanj (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Ruined said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



Absolutely


----------



## FunPhotons (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Ruined said:


> 16-35 II is a different ballgame though. If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens. In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department. A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion. I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor. The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).
> 
> On the other hand, for landscape work this new 16-35 f/4L IS looks like an easy winner over the 16-35 II f/2.8.
> 
> So it depends what you are going to do with it, as is often the case  IMO, 16-35 II f/2.8L remains king for now for event photography.



Good point! I was wondering if I wanted to keep my 16-35 II f/2.8. I hate bothering to sell lenses, this gives me an excuse to keep it.


----------



## Skirball (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sfunglee said:


> I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens
> wonder shall I go for the 16-35 IS? worth?
> 
> also I haven't got my wide for APS-C :-[ , which should I go for?
> ...



Guess I have to ask why? I feel like there are so many better options for a standard zoom lens on a APS-C. Why not the 17-55? Or something like a 24-70 or 24-105 if you want an EF lens.

If you're willing to spend that kind of cash on a lens then I wouldn't be lured in by the low price of the 10-18, unless it proves to be markedly sharper, which seems unlikely. So unless you want STM for video I'd stick with the tried and true 10-22.


----------



## dlleno (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Skirball said:


> sfunglee said:
> 
> 
> > I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens
> ...




+1. f/2.8 is going to be more important on the 7D, so for the required FOV the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the better choice imho for a walkabout lens, than the 16-35 f/4 IS. 16-35 f/2.8 II is certainly doable -- its corner softness will be mitigated by the crop body, and it will serve as an upgrade path to FF, but it does not give you IS in the so-called "normal" FOV region (i.e. ~28-80 FF equivalent). Note also that the 7D's AF system will benefit from f/2.8. 

But to help answer the question, you need to ask: in what situations does the 16-35 f/2.8 II fail for you? what capabilities does it lack that would allow you to take better photos? what are the situations where you have a low keeper rate? If the answer is "low keeper rate due to camera shake" then you need to add IS. If the answer is "low keeper rate due to motion blur" then for sure you don't want to give up f/2.8, while IS may not be important. you can see here that the combination of IS and f/2.8 may or may not be important to you. 

I would also recommend you review the meta data of your 16-35 f/2.8 II photos and see what percentage of them use f/2.8. Consider too, that the region between 35mm and 55mm may be important to you as well.

I sold both my 17-55 and 10-22 but they were important regulars in my crop body bag. Only downside to the 17-55 is that it is flare-prone and needs a front filter. FYI I had a $250 repair experience gone way bad (on my 17-55 before it sold) -- took Canon four attempts and four months to get it right, so make sure you test your copy, and beware of purchases from individuals.


----------



## ahsanford (May 15, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sfunglee said:


> I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens
> wonder shall I go for the 16-35 IS? worth?
> 
> also I haven't got my wide for APS-C :-[ , which should I go for?
> ...


On a crop? The _Sigma 18-35 F/1.8_ is your walkaround. The PZ resolution data on that lens is astonishing for a zoom -- it's on par with the 35 Art prime!
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/872-sigma1835f18_canon?start=1

That plus the F/1.8 walks the crop hit on small DOF back to somewhat level terms with an FF F/2.8 zoom. Win win. If I was still shooting crop, this would be my walkaround.

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Skirball said:


> sfunglee said:
> 
> 
> > I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens
> ...



Yeah for aps-c standard walk around I'd go for 17-55 2.8 IS or 15-85 IS or tamron 17-50 2.8. So much better range and all crisp enough to the edge on aps-c rather than the FF-able lenses.


----------



## sparda79 (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Anybody posted this yet?:-

Samples from Canon China website





http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/img/sample1_zoom.jpg





http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/img/sample2_zoom.jpg





http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/img/sample3_zoom.jpg





http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/sample.html





http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/img/sample5_zoom.jpg





http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/img/sample6_zoom.jpg


----------



## Dylan777 (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



sparda79 said:


> Anybody posted this yet?:-
> 
> Samples from Canon China website



Thanks for sharing. Those corners look real good


----------



## Marsu42 (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Dylan777 said:


> Thanks for sharing. Those corners look real good



How many non-CR members viewing these shots would comment on the corners :-> ... esp. with closed aperture and this export size I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between 17-40L, 16-35L/24 and the new 16-35L/4, Canon should have done comparison shots


----------



## Eldar (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Marsu42 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for sharing. Those corners look real good
> ...


I believe Dylan made a "That looks promising.." comment. Not a "Wow that´s awesome, I want one!" comment ... 

And the shots are promotion, not a review. They are still going to sell both the 17-40 and 16-35 2.8, so why on earth should they hand out comparison shots to kill one or two of them? Would not be a smart career move for anyone in marketing, unless the motivation was to stop all sales of one model and jump start a new.


----------



## jdramirez (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I'm so late to this conversation, but is the presumption threat the 16-35 f4L going to replace the 17-40 f4L ?

I'm not a big fan of the wide angle look so it doesn't really affect me one way or another, but I have thought about doing some freelance real estate photography on the weekends. So obviously a wide angle is preferable for that... and I'm curious if waiting for the new lens to drop in price is worth it....


----------



## awinphoto (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Ruined said:


> The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.
> 
> 16-35 II is a different ballgame though. If you are interested in doing indoor event work, IMO the 16-35 II f/2.8L is the better purchase; there simply isn't enough light at many indoor events to use an f/4 lens. In fact, often f/2.8 isn't even enough; f/2.8 is more useful in low light than f/4 IS at 35mm, and with shutter speed needing to be 1/100 minimum to freeze motion f/4 will hurt in the ISOs department. A noisy picture caused by five digit ISOs or motion blur will be much more noticeable in low light than less than perfect corner sharpness, and IS aside from not being as effective at wide focal lengths also will not freeze motion. I do have primes that are below f/2.8, but none of them at 16mm which can be useful in tight quarters like a dancefloor. The 16-35 II is one of the rare lenses that has a UWA-wide/normal zoom range, f/2.8, and accepts filters (I don't know how I'd feel with a bulbous element at a crowded event).
> 
> ...



I'll definitely pick this one up, shortly after my daughter is born my bills are all in order... As far as the 2.8 vs 4 debate, i've been well vocal enough on this... and for giggles, as a weekend long event we were hired for to do photography coverage for, (all indoors) we played with different lenses and combinations... Needless to say, Regardless whether it was F4 or 2.8, we needed flash. And 2.8 made the DOF even more shallow and unforgiving than the F4 was to boot. In the end, i instructed my assistant photographer, and my wife and I to use our 24-105's. Had Flash, chewed through batteries but got a good thousand or so images after culling that were sharp, ISO was ok (manually set at around 4000 which on our 5d3 and 6D came out gorgeous), and flash... I personally feel the argument that you NEED 2.8 for indoors is just wrong. If F4 cant pull it off, 2.8 really isn't going to buy you much latitude, and you have a narrower DOF. 1.4 and such is even tougher with DOF, especially for event coverage. It's good for artistic expression and isolating subjects, but shooting groups of people, shooting moving subjects, shooting events, you will likely still need flash or ISO to get good shots, and with modern cameras, ISO is becoming even better. I've had indoor wedding shots around 20,000 ISO that came out gorgeous with minimal noise... It is what it is.


----------



## Etienne (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



awinphoto said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > The pricing is right on this lens, easily worth spending the 275 over 17-40/4L.
> ...



I agree with most of what you say. I shoot my 16-35 2.8L II at 5.6 - 11 most of the time, and I probably use f/16 more than I use f/2.8 on that lens.

f/ 1.4 DOF can be difficult to get a subject in focus, but mostly on lenses >50mm FL. I think the 24 1.4 is not hard to get the whole subject in focus unless you are less than 5 ft away. The 35 f/2 IS is not hard to get a sharp focus on subjects at f/2, and I suspect the 35 f/1.4 is not much harder either.


----------



## awinphoto (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Etienne said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Thanks for your reply. I would say that it isn't so much that it's hard to get focus as that the DOF is so thin, especially for indoors and shootings, lets hypothetically around 8-10 feet, if I were to shoot a small group, or even a couple, at 1.4 the DOF is still less than a foot (2.8 on average about 1.5 feet). That would be tough to pull of in a studio setting let alone a grab shot, wham bam thank you mam kinda thing. So, since most people equate needing fast lenses FOR INDOOR EVENTS, that 1.4 or 2.8 is still very thin. I would estimate the vast majority of event indoor work still settles at around 5.6-8 so most small group shots are in focus, which throws out the advantage of 2.8 or faster anyways. Now there can be that argument that it may let more light into the lens for AF, and that's always nice, but at the inherent tradeoffs such as weight, cost, and bang for the buck), IMHO Meh


----------



## Marsu42 (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



jdramirez said:


> I'm so late to this conversation, but is the presumption threat the 16-35 f4L going to replace the 17-40 f4L ?



That's my guess, Canon cannot make much money from the current 17-40L's price which has cashback rebates all the time, and I don't see them releasing a previously rumored 17-50/4-ish lens with this 16-35/4 actually on the market.

Esp. since releasing lenses with shorter zoom range is beneficial to Canon: most likely better iq for high mp sensors and people are marketed into buying more lenses: Instead of one 24-105L you'll now end up with three: 16-35/4, 24-70/4, 70-xyz.


----------



## Etienne (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



awinphoto said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



f/2.8 is not that thin DOF as you go to UWA. A 50 mm FL at 6 feet away f/2.8 gives DOF 0.78 ft (very thin, and difficult to manage), whereas a 24mm FL gives 3.4 feet, which is more than enough. At 15 feet away for a group, 24mm lens gives a whopping 36 feet of DOF. The razor thin concern doesn't apply at ultra wide. 

An extreme example here: 24mm f/1.4 at 15 feet still has a DOF of 11 feet (but Canon's 24 1.4L is very soft in the corners at 1.4, different issue). 

16mm f/2.8 at 6 feet away still has a very easy to manage DOF of 11 feet. Even as close as 3 feet, gives about 2 feet DOF.

So, f/2.8 really can help indoor photography for ultrawides without causing DOF problems.


----------



## dlleno (May 16, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Etienne said:


> f/2.8 is not that thin DOF as you go to UWA. A 50 mm FL at 6 feet away f/2.8 gives DOF 0.78 ft (very thin, and difficult to manage), whereas a 24mm FL gives 3.4 feet, which is more than enough. At 15 feet away for a group, 24mm lens gives a whopping 36 feet of DOF. The razor thin concern doesn't apply at ultra wide.
> 
> An extreme example here: 24mm f/1.4 at 15 feet still has a DOF of 11 feet (but Canon's 24 1.4L is very soft in the corners at 1.4, different issue).
> 
> ...



yea. so f/2.8 can help isolate the subject from the background as well. in your example, the DOF extends from about 2 feet in front to 9 feet behind, which may be pushing it for subject isolation but still doable (you would more likely be stepping back and zooming in to 21 mm for example, for better results -- But to continue the example: at f/4 (still 16mm and subject distance of 6 feet) you loose almost all hope of subject isolation from the background because everything 34 feet behind the subject is in focus. so in this particular example, the f/2.8 lens has a hope of capturing a venue feature like a candelabra or whatever, with some isolation from the background, but the f/4 lens has little hope. I doubt very many people/group shots are taken at 16mm and 6 foot distance... but I'm not a wedding 'tog so I'm open to correction here


----------



## awinphoto (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Etienne said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Totally fair enough, but under very few circumstances you would ever want to use 24mm for group shots... way too much distortion on the edges, even with the best of lenses... the guys in the middle of the frame would look good, the poor guys on the end would look huge. That being said, it is what it is...


----------



## Etienne (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dlleno said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > f/2.8 is not that thin DOF as you go to UWA. A 50 mm FL at 6 feet away f/2.8 gives DOF 0.78 ft (very thin, and difficult to manage), whereas a 24mm FL gives 3.4 feet, which is more than enough. At 15 feet away for a group, 24mm lens gives a whopping 36 feet of DOF. The razor thin concern doesn't apply at ultra wide.
> ...



The 70 200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 can use f/2.8 for subject isolation at 50 mm and above, roughly speaking, but f/2.8 in ultra wides is all about more light and nothing about shallow dof. The 24 f/1.4 is pretty much the only ultra wide that can achieve an effective shallow dof, and you still have to get in fairly close and stay at 1.4


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



dlleno said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > f/2.8 is not that thin DOF as you go to UWA. A 50 mm FL at 6 feet away f/2.8 gives DOF 0.78 ft (very thin, and difficult to manage), whereas a 24mm FL gives 3.4 feet, which is more than enough. At 15 feet away for a group, 24mm lens gives a whopping 36 feet of DOF. The razor thin concern doesn't apply at ultra wide.
> ...



The things with weddings is that your often forced to shoot in less than ideal situations. I use the 24mm alot for family group shots --- why? it's a trade off...you want head to toe, but they want them in the church in front of the alter. If you slap the 50mm on, yes, less distortion but you have to step back so far that you get the pews in the shot, so your stuck doing a hip and up shot, or, go with the 24. Or if it's really tight and the bride and groom don't listen to me when i say it's better to do the shot outside (oh, it's too hot, or grandma is in the wheelchair, or any number of on the spot excuses that can happen) - yeah, go with the 16-35...it isn't ideal but that's wedding photography...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Etienne said:


> ...but f/2.8 in ultra wides is all about more light and nothing about shallow dof.



I'd have to disagree. With close subjects (albeit generally not people), I get shallow DoF with my 16-35/2.8, even at 16mm.


----------



## candyman (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

I am not sure if it was already posted here but found this interesting url with some mtf observation:

http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/canon-16-35-f4l-is-usm-mtfs-vs-the-16-35-f2-8l/


----------



## gshocked (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Hi all,

Not sure where this forum is heading but to bring it back to the 16-35 f4 IS.. Sounds good but I'd love to see it priced at a better prices point than the 16-35 f2.8. I love my photography and I know it's all about the money for Canon but they'd seriously sell more gear if they rejigged their price points.


----------



## tron (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



candyman said:


> I am not sure if it was already posted here but found this interesting url with some mtf observation:
> 
> http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/canon-16-35-f4l-is-usm-mtfs-vs-the-16-35-f2-8l/


Very interesting article, thanks.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



neuroanatomist said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > ...but f/2.8 in ultra wides is all about more light and nothing about shallow dof.
> ...



+1, a f2.8 wa definitely has a place in the lineup - with my 17-40L/4 you can get *some* bokeh (for me, usually light circles through leaves in the background) but I'd really like to have some more if possible. Focus stacking also solves the thin dof problem if shooting uwa macro, there are definitely creative possibilities here.

I hope all you people start selling your old, outdated 16-35L/2.8 lenses so I can buy one ... think of the horrible corner performance and sell before it's too late!


----------



## candyman (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Actually I did so yesterday and ordered the 16-35mm f/4 IS. The camerashop expects that soon more people will sell the f/2.8 version so the value price for occasion will drop. That is interesting for those who long for the f/2.8 version. I got a nice price.
I found mine too soft in the corners. And, not using it much for indoor or evening events.


----------



## Etienne (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



neuroanatomist said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > ...but f/2.8 in ultra wides is all about more light and nothing about shallow dof.
> ...



You can force some bokeh out of almost any lens, some people even talk about bokeh on their 1/3" camcorders, but I don't see the point, it's not that impressive. I don't find it very impressive at 2.8 on a FF ultra-wide either, so I stopped trying on the 16-35. The 24 1.4 is the exception, you can get good bokeh relatively easily, and still have a lot of flexibility of composition. Anyway, my point was that shallow DOF is not the drawing card for UWA lenses, but everyone wants more light on the sensor.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Etienne said:


> You can force some bokeh out of almost any lens, some people even talk about bokeh on their 1/3" camcorders, but I don't see the point, it's not that impressive.



For my requirements, I don't need impressive super-"bokehlicious" beautiful background creaminess, but simply some motive-background separation.

Depending on the camera-motive-background distance relationship, f2.8 could make the difference between a usable and unusable "mobile-phone" infinity-dof style picture. Admittedly, you really need to be careful with the setup or the dof is too thin to be usable for higher export/print size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Etienne said:


> ...my point was that shallow DOF is not the drawing card for UWA lenses...



Not for you, but then, you're not 'everyone'.


----------



## Etienne (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



neuroanatomist said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > ...my point was that shallow DOF is not the drawing card for UWA lenses...
> ...



Fine, if shallow DOF in ultrawide is your thing, have at it. But you'd get better results with a 24 1.4, than 2.8 zoom


----------



## rs (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Etienne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...


In some situations a prime and/or 24mm focal length won't do, even for those who want a large aperture. In those scenarios a zoom covering the range which is as fast as is practical is the best option. f2.8 is still a whole stop up on f4. A whole stop in every respect, including the effects on DoF.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Etienne said:


> Fine, if shallow DOF in ultrawide is your thing, have at it. But you'd get better results with a 24 1.4, than 2.8 zoom



You're missing the point here . My photos aren't made by my lenses, but by me. For some situations, you need an uwa, you cannot move the wall behind you or elevate the motive if you're lying on the ground and shooting upwards.

Plus 16/17mm does have a very distinctive and interesting "non-p&s" look... even if it's not that much difference from a wide 24mm (whatever this is, for example the current 24-70L2's wide end is longer than 24-70L1 or Tamron).


----------



## sanj (May 19, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



Etienne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



I agree with you.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 19, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*

Lol....UK pricing for the 16-35 f4 LIS seems to be nearly as expensive as the f2.8 version! 
While I'm sure the UK price will fall dramatically once the product is on the shelves, i really thing that canon urgently needs to refresh it's UK RRP policy.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 19, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



GMCPhotographics said:


> Lol....UK pricing for the 16-35 f4 LIS seems to be nearly as expensive as the f2.8 version!



Usually retailers try to get away with a as large "early adopters premium" as possible. If I'd be out for a new Canon/premium brand lens I'd calculate about 6 months wait time before EU prices settle to a reasonable level.


----------



## rs (May 19, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



GMCPhotographics said:


> Lol....UK pricing for the 16-35 f4 LIS seems to be nearly as expensive as the f2.8 version!
> While I'm sure the UK price will fall dramatically once the product is on the shelves, i really thing that canon urgently needs to refresh it's UK RRP policy.


It's a tax for the impatient.


----------



## jdramirez (May 19, 2014)

*Re: Canon Announces Two New EF Ultra Wide-Angle Zoom Lenses and White EOS Rebel SL1 Digital SLR Came*



rs said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Lol....UK pricing for the 16-35 f4 LIS seems to be nearly as expensive as the f2.8 version!
> ...



I've been an early adopter in video game systems and that's about it. I've been able to not go nuts and buy camera gear at launch.... which I believe shows great moral character... though I'm the only one that would believe that.


----------

