# EF 16-40 f/4L IS [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 24, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/05/ef-16-40-f4l-is-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/05/ef-16-40-f4l-is-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>A replacement to the 17-40 f/4L?</strong>

Apparently a patent for an EF 16-40 f/4L IS will be filed soon and Iâ€™m told to keep an eye for it over the next couple of weeks.</p>
<p><strong>CRâ€™s Take

</strong>The 17-40 is one of the best values in â€œLâ€ lenses and is a cash cow for Canon. It does need improvements on the edges and Nikon stabilized their f/4 full frame wide angle. Itâ€™s a believable replacement.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p>â€“

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html?BI=2466&KBID=3296">Canon EF 17-40 f/4L $839 @ B&H</a>
```


----------



## J. McCabe (May 24, 2011)

If the corner resolution is improved, I'll upgrade the first chance I have.

As for IS, I don't care for it one bit, as when this lens is on my camera, I use a tripod anyway.


----------



## Holy Trinity (May 24, 2011)

Hello,

I don't see Canon releasing such a lens, it would even kill the 16-35 II if it is sharp wide open.

I don't really believe this rumor, but it would be a good lens for those who shoot both FF and CFx1.6. Make it 50/55mm and it would be perfect.


----------



## Macadameane (May 24, 2011)

I thought I recalled a review on the 17-40 and it was sharper and handled better in many cases than the other. The big difference was whether or not you needed f/2.8. There were some specific situations that the 17-40 did not handle better, such as on the long end:

I found it:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

EDIT:
Having looked a bit more, I think this is the 16-35 I not II. Although, the 17-40 still compares well to the new one too on the-digital-picture.com


----------



## awinphoto (May 24, 2011)

My wife would kill me but I'd be in line to sell my 17-40 and upgrade... =)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> Having looked a bit more, I think this is the 16-35 I not II. Although, the 17-40 still compares well to the new one too on the-digital-picture.com



Yep. it was the MkI. The 16-35 II is sharper in the corners and has less CA compared to the 17-40. At the widest angle, the 17-40mm does not perform well at all - the 16-35 is not stellar, but it's noticeably better than the 17-40 @ 17mm. 



Macadameane said:


> The big difference was whether or not you needed f/2.8.



This is really still the big difference. If you stop both lenses down into the f/8-f/11 range, the performance is fairly similar. But, if you'll shoot in low light with the lens (ambient lighting for interior shots, for example, or outdoors at night), the f/2.8 is the better choice, budget permitting. Unlike many faster lenses, at 16/17mm the DoF with wide apertures is not as limiting (e.g. at 16mm f/2.8 focused at 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is within the DoF).


----------



## match14 (May 24, 2011)

It's a pity they cold not make it a tad longer say 55mm or 60mm then it could be the perfect weather sealed standard zoom for 7D. Current weather sealed options are 17-40 L, too short; 24-105 L and 24 - 70 L, not wide enough.


----------



## HughHowey (May 24, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> This is really still the big difference. If you stop both lenses down into the f/8-f/11 range, the performance is fairly similar. But, if you'll shoot in low light with the lens (ambient lighting for interior shots, for example, or outdoors at night), the f/2.8 is the better choice, budget permitting. Unlike many faster lenses, at 16/17mm the DoF with wide apertures is not as limiting (e.g. at 16mm f/2.8 focused at 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is within the DoF).



If the IS is decent, it might more than make up for the difference.

And for those wishing this lens was longer (if it comes out): Crop!

This would be an ideal walkaround for me, especially when I get a 5D3. More megapixels means cropping the hell out of the images. Better ISO means this is as good as a 2.8 is today. *fingers crossed*


----------



## EYEONE (May 24, 2011)

I'd much rather have a 14-24mm 2.8L like Nikon. Are we ever going to get one...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> If the IS is decent, it might more than make up for the difference.



I'm sure the IS will be decent (4 stops at least). But it doesn't make up for the 1-stop difference if your subjects are moving. Fine - a 16/17mm lens with 4-stop IS can be handheld down to 1 second (4 stops slower than 1/focal length). But that's not going to help if your subject is moving. Only a wider aperture (or flash) will do that. Granted, one stop is not a lot - but it's the difference between 1/30 s (where involuntary motion in a posing subject can still cause a little blur) and 1/60 s (which will freeze that involuntary motion).


----------



## HughHowey (May 24, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> HughHowey said:
> 
> 
> > If the IS is decent, it might more than make up for the difference.
> ...



But isn't 4 stops IS better than one stop natural light? Going from an F4 with no IS to an F4 with modern, 4-stop IS makes it better than an older 2.8, right?


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 24, 2011)

I just hope it'll keep a similar 77mm filter thread if such a lens comes into existence. It's hard to find screw-on full neutral density filters (in regards of the major vendors B+W and Hoya) greater than 3 stops for an 82mm thread.


----------



## akiskev (May 24, 2011)

As a user of the current 17-40, I can assure you that corner resolution is not an issue to me. When i need resolution (landscapes etc), i use f/8-13 and I get very sharp images.
If this 16-40 IS hits the shops, I 'll definitely take it just for the IS!!!!


----------



## awinphoto (May 24, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > HughHowey said:
> ...



It is better for static low light situations with no motion of the subject matter (architecture, commercial, etc) however if you have subject motion, you get 1 stop faster shutter... It's not much, however if you have subject motion, and F4 wont cut it, odds are 2.8 wont be perfect either, a fast prime would be... It's about knowing what conditions you are going into before choosing your gear.


----------



## dtr (May 24, 2011)

Well, I am looking to upgrade from Tokina 12-24mm and this might be perfect. The current 17-40mm looks rather bad at 18-20mm compared to Tokina. I am using full frame before anyone asked, and yes Tokina works from 18mm+ just fine , but isn't long enough and doesn't have weather sealing. If that 16-40 would be sharp at f/4 (important for nightscapes and events) with less distracting distortion I will order one. I think it would also make my 24-70L redundant.


----------



## Flake (May 24, 2011)

Definitely been waiting for this, it's about time Canon showed it was capable of making a decent wide angle which can challenge Nikons supremacy. Although the 14 - 24mm f/2.8 is a superb performer there are niggles such as the huge unprotected front element which cannot take a filter. I want a lens which can do both these and also give a longer zoom range. 

The concerns I do have are in part similar to those for every other new lens - will Canon actually be able to deliver it within a reasonable timescale after announcing it, and will the price be comparable to the current model. As a specific the usual wide angle concerns of corner resolution, flare, distortion, CA's etc etc. Wide angle lenses are more critical than longer ones where subjects tend to be in the centre of the image.

I'm sure we are all waiting with baited breath!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > HughHowey said:
> ...



As Awinphoto stated, on short(ish) lenses, IS only helps with static subjects (on long lenses, even shutter speeds fast enough to stop many subjects are not enough to stop camera shake, and IS also helps with a stable viewfinder).

The point is that IS allows you to shoot at a slower shutter speed than otherwise possible based on how steady you can hold the camera. The only kind of motion it counteracts is camera motion, IS does nothing to help _subject_ motion - in fact, it can make subject motion worse (as in my example above - a moving subject will be a lot blurier with a 1 second exposure than with a 1/15 s exposure). If you need a faster shutter speed to stop subject motion, you need a wider aperture, or a higher ISO.


----------



## Flake (May 24, 2011)

A one second exposure would make motion blur and second curtain flash whilst hand holding! It would perhaps even be possible to make a strobed image too without a tripod. This is certainly not possible at the moment.


----------



## epsiloneri (May 24, 2011)

Flake said:


> A one second exposure would make motion blur and second curtain flash whilst hand holding! It would perhaps even be possible to make a strobed image too without a tripod. This is certainly not possible at the moment.



This discussion made me wonder... The jitter amplitude from hand-holding a camera does not grow linearly with time; for short times it probably forms some sort of random walk (scaling like sqrt(time)), but for longer times there should be a limit where the amplitude doesn't increase anymore, and when IS reaches that limit, you should be able to hand hold a camera indefinitely (until you tire or batteries run out, that is). A 1 second exposure sounds like we're getting close to the "indefinite" limit. I mean, I don't think I move a hand-held camera more in 2 seconds than in 1 second, in particular if I can support myself against a wall or similar.


----------



## fotoray (May 25, 2011)

match14 said:


> It's a pity they cold not make it a tad longer say 55mm or 60mm then it could be the perfect weather sealed standard zoom for 7D. Current weather sealed options are 17-40 L, too short; 24-105 L and 24 - 70 L, not wide enough.



If you want this focal length range for a 7D, what's wrong with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8? I know, it's not an L lens.


----------



## ronderick (May 25, 2011)

A 16-40 f/4L would be fine for me (even better, f/3.5). 

At this range, IS would be nice, but I could live w/o it if it's going to make the lens bigger. The compact size and price of the 17-40 f/4L is what makes it a great lens on the cost-performance scale; I hope the new one won't overlook this advantage.

If not, I might as well wait for the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 ED challenger... It should be somewhere down the road (though I'd expect about 2 or 3 more years).


----------



## VirtualRain (May 25, 2011)

This sounds great, but I'm tired of growing old waiting for new Canon products. It's what?... like a year from rumor to announcement, then another year to production?


----------



## ronderick (May 25, 2011)

VirtualRain said:


> This sounds great, but I'm tired of growing old waiting for new Canon products. It's what?... like a year from rumor to announcement, then another year to production?



This year's the exception... who'd expect a major disaster to hit the main production center of cameras and have such a long after effect?

I'd say seeing production return in such a short time is pretty amazing already, given all the negative news about blackouts and power shortages.


----------



## match14 (May 25, 2011)

fotoray said:


> match14 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a pity they cold not make it a tad longer say 55mm or 60mm then it could be the perfect weather sealed standard zoom for 7D. Current weather sealed options are 17-40 L, too short; 24-105 L and 24 - 70 L, not wide enough.
> ...


17-55 is a great lens, but it is not sealed. I'm may end up getting one anyway.


----------



## NXT1000 (May 25, 2011)

i doubt canon will put IS in their wide lense, even if they would do so, they will do it on f2.8 lens first. This is not making sense. Yes, it will make many people happy, but first, we want to see 24-70 f2.8 IS first.


----------



## Flake (May 25, 2011)

NXT1000 said:


> i doubt canon will put IS in their wide lense, even if they would do so, they will do it on f2.8 lens first. This is not making sense. Yes, it will make many people happy, but first, we want to see 24-70 f2.8 IS first.



Erm where do you get this opinion from? Have you not looked at Nikons current range ? They released a 16 - 35mm f/4 VR which was much appreciated. Canon has no alternative to offer. Nikons prices are always a little higher but this thing costs Â£850 ! much higher than the Â£570 of the 17 - 40mm f/4 so expect a price hike.

Nikon have not put VR on their wide angle f/2.8 so there's no much chance that Canon will be doing it either.


----------



## John Smith (May 25, 2011)

akiskev said:


> As a user of the current 17-40, I can assure you that corner resolution is not an issue to me. When i need resolution (landscapes etc), i use f/8-13 and I get very sharp images.
> If this 16-40 IS hits the shops, I 'll definitely take it just for the IS!!!!



Even at f/11 there's plenty of room for improvement at the wide end.


----------



## akiskev (May 25, 2011)

John Smith said:


> akiskev said:
> 
> 
> > As a user of the current 17-40, I can assure you that corner resolution is not an issue to me. When i need resolution (landscapes etc), i use f/8-13 and I get very sharp images.
> ...



Sure there is, I just don't need it for my prints, even if they are 1 meter long.


----------



## John Smith (May 26, 2011)

Holy Trinity said:


> I don't see Canon releasing such a lens, it would even kill the 16-35 II if it is sharp wide open.
> 
> I don't really believe this rumor, but it would be a good lens for those who shoot both FF and CFx1.6. Make it 50/55mm and it would be perfect.



That excludes the possiblity of the 16-35mm f/2.8 being replaced with a wider f/2.8 lens.


----------



## Aputure (May 26, 2011)

This would be a dream lens, as long as the size is kept to reasonable minimum.


----------



## 7enderbender (May 26, 2011)

I don't get it. What would be attractive about this? Yes, I know that you can get away with f/4 in a lot of standard situations (still have my 24-105). And yes, IS kind of works as long as objects are static. But in a wide-angle zoom? And then another lens that is only f/4 but probably more expensive and bigger than the current 17-40?

Nah, I'll keep saving for the 16-35 or some wide angle prime.


----------



## Caps18 (May 26, 2011)

I have the 16-35mm f/2.8, and I am happy with it. I use the f/2.8 far more than the 35-40mm range, plus the faster shutter at other apertures...

Now a 16-40mm f/2.8 or a 17-50mm f/2.8 IS would be perfect...


----------



## awinphoto (May 26, 2011)

Caps18 said:


> I have the 16-35mm f/2.8, and I am happy with it. I use the f/2.8 far more than the 35-40mm range, plus the faster shutter at other apertures...
> 
> Now a 16-40mm f/2.8 or a 17-50mm f/2.8 IS would be perfect...



The day they announce this lens is the day I put my 17-40 up on craigslist and put my order in for this one. The irony with the price inflation over the last year, the price I paid 2-3 years ago for it new is $150 cheaper than current retail rates so I could make up my entire investment on this lens and then some on the used market. =) It's not often you need shallow DOF (F 2.8 ) for wide angle because bokeh is diminished in wide angles due to the wider angle and lower focus scale making the relation between the subject matter and infinity a lot closer than mid range or telephoto. If I need that tad bit of speed, I will throw in my 430 and give me my extra light. 

Now what I want and need is that a lens that is sharp, sharp, and sharp. Corner sharpness doesn't have to be exceptional, acceptable even on full frame, and an IS that does a good 4 stop correction. I shoot a lot of architecture and commercial real estate in which I go into a lot of empty warehouses or foreclosed buildings and have to take pictures quickly with what I'm given as I'm paid by the job, not the hour, so If i spend a day or an hour, I still get the same pay. If I can handhold close to a second and get sharp photos, I'll buy 2 of them.


----------



## mathino (May 26, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> I'd much rather have a 14-24mm 2.8L like Nikon. Are we ever going to get one...



Agreed. Would be very useful to have 14-24 24-70 70-200 all f/2.8.


----------



## asu (May 26, 2011)

i hope its true...
no need the stabilizer thing, prefer for wider lenght 15mm maybe??? 8)


----------

