# New f/4L EF Zoom [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 21, 2010)

```
<p><strong>New Lens with the 24-70 IS?

<span style="font-weight: normal;">This is the 3rd or 4th time I’ve been told about the possibility of this lens.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">An EF 16-50 f/4L H-IS</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Would it replace a 17-40? or be added to the lineup?</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">If this was sharp at the corners on full frame, would anyone ever buy a 17-40 or 16-35 II again?</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Nikon has brought about the 16-35 f/4 VR to mixed reviews, a Canon counterpart makes some sense.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Grain of salt on this one, the lens would sell exceptionally well however.</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: normal;"><strong>Rumor Reminder

<span style="font-weight: normal;">There have been instances when CR1 rumors have become real products, a lot of truths start from stuff like this.</span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: normal;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Also keep in mind Canon has not been busy with announcements in the last year. There were no lenses announced with the 1D Mark IV (70-200 was at a different time) and T2i.</span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: normal;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">We haven’t seen much in the way of lenses since the 7D.</span></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: normal;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Big things coming.</span></strong></span></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Justin (Jul 21, 2010)

The 17-40 and 16-35 are very different lenses aimed at different uses. The price differential creates a further dichotomy among users. 

An f/4 wide angle to mid tele like the rumored 16-50 with IS would be supremely useful as a wide angle walkaround. And great for landscapes and close-ups in lower light thanks to its IS. 

Canon would be wise to release a 14-24 f/2.8 at the same time, the true successor to the 16-35 II. 

In this way Canon would distinguish these two lenses more significantly. Many people would want to own both.


----------



## Isurus (Jul 21, 2010)

I certainly don't think the high ISO ranges of newer cameras negates the need for f/2.8 zooms. Some will always have a preference for the depth of field of an f/2.8 and f/2.8 will always allow you to use a lower ISO and higher shutter speeds relative to f/4.0, which will still allow for incremental improvement in some situations.

That being said, the performance of the 16-35 f/2.8 II leaves something to be desired.


----------



## Grendel (Jul 21, 2010)

I'm quite happy w/ my 16-35 f2.8 II on FF and APS-C. Would not want to trade it for a 14-50 f4


----------



## John (Jul 21, 2010)

If this was a CR+3 my 17-40 would be on ebay right now.


----------



## ronderick (Jul 21, 2010)

I would be a bit worried about the size of this new 16-50L IS. 

I think the most notable advantage of the 17-40 is its compact size. However, if the evolution would involve a change similar to 16-35L I to 16-35 LII... (and don't forget how IS tends to make the lens bigger) :-\


----------



## J-Man (Jul 21, 2010)

With a new 24-70LHIS coming, I'm more interested in a 12/14-24, & since I already have the 16-35II...
It would have to be flawless at this point to get my $.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Jul 21, 2010)

From the specs of this rumored lens, I'd say it might end up being EF-S, not EF. Effectively for APS-C what the 24-105 is for FF. 
If it was sharp it might replace my EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, which seems to be quite a lemon (corners don't sharpen up enough even at f5.6), but it would never replace my 24-105, a FL range which I actually prefer over the 17-55. 
If they made it 16-70 f4 (and if Canon would stop being greedy with their current pricing policy), I would definitely get one.


----------



## mike c (Jul 21, 2010)

if this is EF ... at first glance my jaw almost dropped since i just bought a 17-40L for FF and a 17-50 2.8 VC for crop ... this could have been the one lens solution to both the lenses above.

but realizing that while it has IS, 2.8 is still 2.8. 2.8VC at that.

i will rest easy now unless this was price around 1k or lower. (nikon is 1200)


----------



## Grumpy (Jul 21, 2010)

I would appreciate such a zoom, but why start at 16 and not 15?. Then you will have a 24-80 on a APS-C.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Jul 21, 2010)

Grumpy said:


> I would appreciate such a zoom, but why start at 16 and not 15?. Then you will have a 24-80 on a APS-C.



A tad more WA would of course be nice, but if it comes with the quite massive distortion of the 15-85... of course DPP can correct this, but after correction, the effective focal length/viewing angle will be smaller due to the cropping involved in distortion correction. So we probably wouldn't gain too much for all applications were distortions are not acceptable. Add in that this correction also tends to loose resolution in perhaps already not that great corners, and I think we can do without 15mm.


----------



## Michal (Jul 21, 2010)

H-IS on such wide lens makes a lot of sense indeed. Typical CR rumour - half made-up, half fantasy.


----------



## Woody (Jul 21, 2010)

Canon is really short of new lenses.
- 14-24 f/2.8 (or better still, 14-24 f/4L with front threading)
- 24-70 f/2.8 IS
- 35 f/2 micro-USM
- 50 f/1.4 micro-USM

and cameras:
- D90 direct competitor
- EVIL camera

And MOST importantly, Canon needs to improve on their QC and sensors. They should even try to dabble with in-camera RAW NR like Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus etc.

Only then can they regain their reputation and market share.


----------



## LukeLx (Jul 21, 2010)

If it's real and it's good, i would change my 17-40 immediatly for a 16-50 L IS (even not Hybrid).
It would also be the first time that Canon produce an L lens thinking (at least a bit) at the APS-C format (25,6-80 mm), this would be a great news to me in general.

I agree with Woody in many points but: - new lenses should loose the micro-USM, the new 50 1.4 it's rumored to be USM ring.
Quote for QC and sensors.


----------



## Woody (Jul 21, 2010)

LukeLx said:


> I agree with Woody in many points but: - new lenses should loose the micro-USM, the new 50 1.4 it's rumored to be USM ring.



Ooops... I meant ring USM, NOT micro USM. :-[


----------



## Waleed Essam (Jul 21, 2010)

Hmm... 16-50 F4L IS... feels like a boring lens really. As you said, a 17-40 or 16-35 owner won't probably consider buying it.


----------



## Woody (Jul 21, 2010)

Waleed Essam said:


> Hmm... 16-50 F4L IS... feels like a boring lens really. As you said, a 17-40 or 16-35 owner won't probably consider buying it.



Agreed it won't be an exciting lens, but it's more like an optical upgrade (hopefully) of the pathetic 17-40 f/4L which has horrible corners in FF.


----------



## /dev/null (Jul 21, 2010)

16-50L HIS... This makes some sense as a successor to the 17-40L, but not with hybrid IS. I can see that "normal" angular IS might be useful in very low light conditions. 

But hybrid IS on a wide angle lens? Hybrid IS also compensates for linear movements of the camera. This is important/useful when those movements reach a certain percentage of the object's size. That's why HIS was first included in a macro lens, which can image very small objects. Say you want stability of 1 pixel on a 25mm object at 3000 pixels image height, that makes about 25mm/3000=8 microns camera shake. No coffee today! I could eventually see the usefulness on a close-focusing supertele, shooting 10cm-sized birds

A wide angle is the last place where HIS belongs. How much do you have to shake the camera to reach a percentage of the size of a tree or a skyscraper? If your skyscraper is 100m tall, the 1 pixel shake is 100m/3000 = 33cm. Even Parkinson himself does not need HIS for that, normal IS will do. In fact, it is all but impossible that the HIS corrects such a large movement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2010)

/dev/null said:


> Even Parkinson himself does not need HIS for that, normal IS will do.



Well, like most neurological disorders, the name of the disease is derived from the physician who first described the symptoms. So, Alois Alzheimer had excellent memory, and James Parkinson had hands as steady as anyone else. 

Other than that, though, I agree - H-IS on a wide angle?!? No point. Except maybe from a marketing standpoint.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jul 21, 2010)

I'd agree with John on this one, but I'd also like to see what amount of barrel distortion there would be at 14mm. Also, the 50mm end of this rumored lens probably wouldn't get much use from my perspective. I'd rather use the 24-70mm or 50 1.4 for that focal range.


----------



## Steve Todd (Jul 21, 2010)

The EF 28-200 has been around forever and could use a makeover (add IS). Maybe replacing it with a 24-200 or 24-250 Would be nice. In the film days and before the great EF 28-300 (heavy but outstanding performer) came along, this was my choice for travel and general shooting with my EOS-1V and 1n bodies. Today a lens like that would be a great walk around/street lens and an even better choice than the very good EF 24-105!


----------



## stark-arts (Jul 21, 2010)

ronderick said:


> I would be a bit worried about the size of this new 16-50L IS.
> 
> I think the most notable advantage of the 17-40 is its compact size. However, if the evolution would involve a change similar to 16-35L I to 16-35 LII... (and don't forget how IS tends to make the lens bigger) :-\



Can you show us a lens that is bigger due to IS? Not one that I can think of - I could be wrong on this.
I also don't believe that 1 mm at front end and 10 at long end will greatly increase the size of the lens. it would be smaller than the 17-55 2.8 so it can't be too big...


----------



## scalesusa (Jul 21, 2010)

I've had a 17-40mm L for about 2 years now, and have never warmed up to it. It focuses fine and all that, but is not particularly sharp, even stopped down.

I'd be interested in a updated IS version for my FF and 1D MK III cameras.


----------



## mcgrattan (Jul 21, 2010)

Perfect walkabout for APS-H sensors


----------



## match14 (Jul 21, 2010)

I have a feeling that his lens could turn out to be a 15-70mm f/4. APS-C users have been longing for a crop equivalent of the 24-105mm f/4L for ages and a 15-70mm would be equivalent to 24-112mm on a crop body. Of course, many people say that f/4 is not fast enough on a crop but there are lots people using the 24-105mm on crop right now and are happy but wish it were wider. I would be tempted to say that this would be an EF-S lens but I feel that this lens would be more expensive than the 15-85 and therefore would not be a big seller compared to that lens. Therefore, I think that this would be an EF 15-70mm f/4L IS USM, which could replace the 17-40 f/4. This way crop users wanting a weather sealed pro built lens would have a great standard lens with a better range than the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, and if those users upgraded to full frame or decided to use two bodies, one crop the other full frame, the lens would become a wide angle zoom. Granted there would be terrible distortion on full frame at 15mm but the lens could be used on full frame for anyone taking their first step upgrading from crop to full frame.

Of course, the exact focal lengths I have stated maybe wrong so it could be 15-60mm rather than 15-70mm but I do see it starting at 15mm and ending at either 60mm or 70mm.

So it think the lens will turn out to be either an EF 15-60mm f/4L IS USM or and EF 15-70 f/4L IS USM. I know many people would hope it was an EF-S lens but as I have said, it would be to close to the EF-S 15-85mm.


----------



## mrfig (Jul 21, 2010)

The original comment......

"With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?"

Your kidding right?!? For wide angle lenses wider apatures are more critical than ever if you want to compress your depth of field!!


----------



## ronderick (Jul 22, 2010)

stark-arts said:


> ronderick said:
> 
> 
> > I would be a bit worried about the size of this new 16-50L IS.
> ...



How can putting on additional components not affect the size and weight?

70-200 f/2.8L USM 84.6mm x 193.6mm, 1310g
70-200 f/2.8L IS USM 86.2mm x 197mm, 1470g
(*stats from Canon USA website)

I haven't compared the two side-by-side, but any extra weight accounts for a big difference at the end of the day (as for whether you can tell the difference of a several mm in dimension, that's subjective).

However, if 16-50 f/4 L was indeed to come, my bet is there'll be notable differences, since its both adding IS and focal length. We'd be lucky if Canon keeps the filter size at 77 *shrug*


----------



## muteteh (Jul 22, 2010)

I hope big things are coming.

Per the EF Lens chronology, I would guess we can expect three more lenses around photokina.

Personally, I hope for a new circular fisheye. A new ultrawide lens a-la Nikkor 14-24 or Sigma 12-24 would be nice.

Mostly, I wonder what Canon plans to do with it's prime lenses. IMHO, a good example would be the 24mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.8 are not sharper or faster than the EF 24-70mm, and do not feature USM. I think it's about time Canon re-did it's cheaper 20mm-24mm-28mm-35mm primes with improved optics, f/1.8 aperture, and USM.


----------



## Woody (Jul 22, 2010)

ronderick said:


> How can putting on additional components not affect the size and weight?
> 70-200 f/2.8L USM 84.6mm x 193.6mm, 1310g
> 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM 86.2mm x 197mm, 1470g



But the amount added can vary from lens to lens:

a) 70-200 f/4 without and with IS: 705 to 760 g
b) 100 f/2.8 macro without and with IS: 600 to 625 g

In the two examples listed above, the increase is very slight (about 4 to 8%).


----------



## pierlux (Jul 22, 2010)

With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?

Why not? Especially considering that stopping down to f/4 a f/2.8 wideangle zoom should yield better image quality than a f/4 wide open. That said, a replacement of the 17-40 f/4L USM is absolutely possible. Most of the official Canon websites worldwide (except Canon USA, Canon Canada and a few others) indicate the 17-40 being especially suited for crop sensors, though being an EF lens (yes, they really explicitly state this!). Which is a mild way to say that it sucks wide open on a FF body.


----------



## Grendel (Jul 22, 2010)

pierlux said:


> With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?


Yes. 1: you want low ISO, the dark end of the DR shows noise at ISO 100 w/ todays pixel density and 2: DOF.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 22, 2010)

Grendel said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?
> ...



1) If they improve DR, that will fix that issue.

2) To me, the DOF at 16mm between 2.8 and 4.0 is so minimal. I'd shoot with a 24 1.4 for that purpose.

3) They should make a Leica influenced 21 f/1.4. That's a fun lens.


----------



## ronderick (Jul 23, 2010)

Woody said:


> But the amount added can vary from lens to lens:
> 
> a) 70-200 f/4 without and with IS: 705 to 760 g
> b) 100 f/2.8 macro without and with IS: 600 to 625 g
> ...



Don't know about the 70-200 f/4, but in the case of 100 f/2.8, I have experienced the dilimma of choosing between IS or none-IS (Thanks for mentioning this one... I almost forgot about the first H-IS update). 

While it may not be that significant in terms of weight, there's a notable jump in filter size (58mm to 67mm) and size (the barrel is considerably thicker). I must admit, the H-IS helps handheld macro shots a lot, but the size expansion is a real factor when your backpack is only so big. 

It makes all the difference in deciding whether it's a regular starter or bench role, and in this case I chose size/cost over H-IS/L quality...

And definitely that's one thing I hope won't happen to the assumed 17-40 update (unless Canon markets it as a completely seperate option)


----------



## Woody (Jul 23, 2010)

Grendel said:


> Yes. 1: you want low ISO, the dark end of the DR shows noise at ISO 100 w/ todays pixel density



Hmmm... With today's technology, pixel density hardly has any effect in the shadows at low ISO: 24 MP D3X vs 12 MP D3s, 18 MP 7D vs 12 MP 450D etc etc. At even higher pixel densities, Canon can cheat with the black levels like in Nikon D90.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 9, 2010)

So I have no idea whether or not they will put the H-IS on there, but if it is like the IS on the new 100mm macro (that is what it has, right?), then I will have do disagree with most here and say that it would be good to have on this lens. My reason? Video. I heard and saw in a demonstration (I believe by Vincent Laforet, but can't remember for certain now) that the H-IS on the new macro is much better for video. There is no typical "snap" and it is a bit smoother. Not a big deal for still shots, but a huge deal for video. I could see video people snapping this up. I know it still isn't enough to make some people give up their old ones, but I think it would have a place. Just my 2 cents


----------

